Yes Stephen, this is indeed the place for this ballot, and you have officially launched it with a most diverse and interesting list. Allan’s “nearlies” to be posted tomorrow, will officially begin his own consideration.

Wow, we’re already here? Looking forward to the nearlies. Not sure yet if I’ll participate in this poll. The Best of the 21st Century? series has helped me catch up on some titles but it’s still one of my weaker decades – despite the fact that it’s the only one I lived through as an adult! With a little more distance than I had in its midst, I don’t think it was quite as bad as I thought at the time, but it was definitely one of the weakest decades for American cinema.

I think I’ll probably disagree with more of Allan’s picks for this decade than any other, but we’ll see (I know there are quite a few I’ll definitely agree with too).

I’ll simply copy the list I already posted over at “The Aspect Ratio”. Anyone who wants to read my commentary again can head over there and check it out. Otherwise, here’s the basic voting ballot, plus extra nearlies:

Fish, aren’t you the one who put “Freeway” in your top 50 countdown of 90’s films? You can have your trickbabies & big bad Bauers, and I’ll stick to my mojito fiends & cocaine cowboys…

As for your comments, Jamie– I’ve still yet to see “The Fall” (I was going to see it, but have since avoided it for the same reason I can’t watch Miyazaki movies anymore; never fall for an anime fangirl). And as for “GI Joe”, I’ll simply repeat what I said over at “The Aspect Ratio”– it has ninjas!

This is why I’m glad your countdowns only feature one film at a time, Fish. I tend to visit the site while I’m having coffee, so after the resulting spit-take I only ever have to clean my screen off once a day.

Just because you’ve got a more discriminating palate doesn’t make your own personal selection the standard to beat. After all, some vintages go best with Fish, and others require red meat, full of shit or not. Perhaps I am as mad as a cow, but there’s more method to it than meets the eye of your beholder. At the end of the day, there’s far less difference between the poisons we pick than you might like to think– what you call a taste-test I see as nothing but a cinematic Pepsi challenge.

Hey everyone. I did my top 15 a couple months ago on my blog. Some of it has changed for my 25 here, partially because some films I really underrated (Inland Empire especially) and partially because I only allowed one film per director for my top 15. Mostly though, as you’re doing a list you realize everything that’s wrong with it. Anyway, heres my top 25 of the decade…

I am fighting the urge to go ahead and post my list now, as there are some movies I want to get to before I make an official submission… plus some that I have seen only once, and particularly ones that I have not seen for a while, in order to reassess them. So I’m loving seeing some of these lists to remind me of movies I should try and see before I post my own list. Since the noir countdown is drawing toward a close, I suppose I will now go on a 2000s binge!

Ugh, this is damn hard even when you’ve got several decades’ worth of space to ensure that the cream rises to the top. The list I made for my own blog has already changed, and I suspect that this new one will merely be a placeholder for a later re-evaluation:

I’m lovin’ everyone’s list so far. Great diversity and so great to see the most misunderstood masterpiece of the decade, Miami Vice, getting some major recognition. Here’s my top 25 list with links to their respective capsule reviews:

Kevin, you’ve spent months at Hugo Stiglitz examining the decade, and those links are the fruits of youtr labor. It’s bizarre that I dislike your #1 and #2, but do love many of your choices. Of course we are thrilled to have this great ballot here!

Kevin J. Olson said, “Weird…I just posted my list but I don’t see it anywhere…when I went to resend just to be sure it said I had already posted it…hmmm”
Hi! Kevin J. Olson,
Your top 25 list was in the spam queue…Due to the links…perhaps?!?
DeeDee 😉

I’m looking forward to these lists. I knew going in it would be the decade with the most disagreements, but damn, to see multiple users choosing Miami Vice, and a top100 selection for G.I. Joe (ugh) is more shock than I can handle this early on!

I’m going to wait until the end for this one, so I can catch up on a handful I’ve yet to see, and maybe Allan’s list will suggest a few more to check out. Great start to this decade. I’m especially glad it’s a full 100 rather than 50.

You’ll be happy to note that I’ve just moved “Miami Vice” up in my ballot, based on just this unexpected surge of popularity for the film. Personally, I think I had it in more or less the right spot before, but hey, I’m more than happy to give some help to an unlikely candidate.

Well, here’s what I came up with. Honestly one of the tougher decades for me, but there’s some pretty good stuff in there. Still a lot of stuff on other people’s lists that I have to look forward to as well!

For me, I like Miami Vice almost exclusively for the tone it sets. My experience of the movie was sensual only, with a narrative serving only as a rack on which to drape the tone and setting. I guess that’s the best I can do by way of explanation.

I have written about Miami Vice on my blog so I won’t get into it here, but to maybe give a bit of understanding as to why I like it so much (number 2 on my list): I think of the film in the same terms as something like The New World. It’s a film that has a whole of style, and even though its detractors will not say much about it’s narrative I think they’re missing the point that the aesthetic — the visuals…the sensory aspects of the film — act as the narrative in the same way they do in a Malick film. I may overrate the film, but I can’t deny the feeling I get from it every time I watch. Perhaps the fact that it’s so misunderstood in my opinion is one of the factors in rating it so highly, but I truly believe that’s only a small part. I think it’s as beautiful and brilliant an example of Mann’s craft that he’s created so far.

Kevin – thanks for elaborating…I can totally relate to “compensating” when a film you have embraced is not very well received by others. The whole genesis of MIAMI VICE – the movies bothers me…and I prefer Mann in LA. To me, LA is his muse, and his LA-based COLLATERAL is his strongest film for me…wonderful aesthetics, great story, taut and suspenseful.

I’ll always have a soft spot for LAST OF THE MOHICANS, though when you look at that, it is an a-typical Mann film in style and story content.

Not to but in, but I’ve never liked Mann’s overall worldview, or the worldview he permeates in his films (even if I enjoy watching some of them). He seems to be way to optimistic for a maker of largely crime films to me. I remembering watching COLLATERAL the first time and liking it, for the most part, then there was the wolf scene and night club shootout–both fantastic. I was thinking at that point, ‘this could be a special film.’ But deep down I knew how he’d end the film, the ‘good guy’ would win out, not matter how the ‘bad guy’ would in real life, or SHOULD in this film. It’s a thing Jean Pierre Melville (a man Mann clearly adores) had no problem doing–and did extremely well–but Mann cannot. Even in Melville’s film when the ‘bad guys’ don’t win out (like LE CIRCLE ROUGE for example, or UN FLIC) it seems more poetic, more realistic. Whereas in Mann I think it’s just because he doesn’t have the balls to carry a story out to where it needs to go.

My two cents anyways. That and I think Mann’s work on PUBLIC ENEMIES was downright atrocious, that’s a film/subject matter that he should have hit out of the ball park.

Jamie, Mann is one of my favorite filmmakers, and I don’t think Mann’s and Melville’s treatments in this regard are remarkably different. Mann definitely identifies more with De Niro than Pacino in Heat, for example, just as Melville identifies more with Delon than Bourvil in Le cercle rouge. Mann has to kill the thieves because he’s playing according to specific genre conventions, just as Melville was. But that doesn’t mean either filmmaker necessarily identifies with the cops as the good guys, and Mann’s Public Enemies and Melville’s Un flic both suggest they have serious contempt for lawmen in certain instances. But maybe I’m not understanding you completely right, and your complaint regarding Collateral seems fair, although that’s not a particularly Melvillian picture.

I guess what I mainly reacting to–or not reacting to is in favor of Melville’s fatalistic worldview (more often then not in the negative), where men of honor die (whether good or bad), because it’s the world at large that is dishonorable–they therefor have no place in it. Whereas in Mann the sense of authority is predominant, and is seen as a correcting mechanism. Or seeing Mann in my Melville terms, the world is a beautiful place that dishonorable men have corrupted (on either side of the law). But no matter how ‘bad’ a good guy seems, you know that in a Mann film he will come out as victorious… I feel these two filmmakers are exactly opposite in this regard.

Your HEAT reference is spot on, Mann does feel compelled more by DeNiro, yet he simply cannot let him win out. And to me it spoils the more interesting ending, and a more interesting possible explored future (for the creator, Mann and for the curious viewer).

And therefor this drives me to believe that Mann isn’t an auteur–at least philosophically–as he merely takes the easiest way out time and time again.

I understand this is highly subjective, but it’s how I’ve always viewed Mann, I just wish he’d live more in the gray’s of the world, rather then the black and white.

_ _ _ _

Thinking more of COLLATERAL, it may even be OK that he has Cruise die, but I feel it shouldn’t be at the hands of Jamie Foxx and Jada Pinkett-Smith.

Thanks Jamie, and those are really interesting thoughts. I’m not going to argue that Mann’s worldview is as defined or cogent as Melville’s because it pretty clearly is not. But I don’t think Mann’s films really maintain the view that the world is essentially good corrupted by wicked elements, which, it goes without saying, often makes for boring movies (though not always). There is a pretty defined relationship in most of his films between the individual and the community, or more broadly everyone else, and although the community isn’t usually characterized as evil necessarily, it is frequently characterized as incompetent, and in Mann’s cinematic world that often comes to mean the same thing. In Thief, for example, it’s basically Caan versus everyone, whether it’s organized crime elements, the cops he refuses to pay off, or the adoption services he has that wonderful speech railing against. In Heat, everyone holding nine to fives become something totally abstract for Pacino and De Niro, and while normal people aren’t viewed as bad, there is this implication that their work isn’t as honorable, that there isn’t the level of dedication. In The Insider, it’s Pacino and Crowe railing against a system, whether it’s CBS or tobacco. In Ali, it’s Ali (at one point saying to his father “nobody made me, I made me”) versus the U.S. really. Could go on and on. In Miami Vice, it’s Farrell differentiating himself from the Fed who wants the quick bust, going deeper and deeper undercover. Public Enemies is both extremely Melvillian and Peckinpahian, the narrative is framed so that the honorable bandits die and the honorable cops are replaced by Hoover and the systemization of snitching.

Are there inconsistencies in Mann’s philosophical outlook? Yeah, probably if you look hard enough. But there seems to me to be a deliberate pattern that has to be characterized as auteuristic. It’s the theme of the individual, manly, defiant, workmanlike, not owned, performing actions that differentiate himself from the herd, the mass, which is seen as less honorable. In that way I think Melville and Mann are very similar.

I haven’t submitted a list since the 1970s poll but couldn’t pass up getting involved again for this decade. As others have remarked, this was difficult due to the lack of distancing from the films. Thus, there are several films on my list that probably fit “personal favorites” more than “best of.” Also, I couldn’t resist including my 26-50 along with the list.

JPK, I hope I’ll be around in 10 years! Ha! I can’t even imagine that WitD will be here that far into the future, but you never do know. Blogsites usually go 2 to 4 years at most, many far less. Great list here, and much-appreciated!!

Anything that sycophancy, blackmail, bribery, corruption and simple ranting and raving can to keep WitD alive, he will do. Remember that scene in Ink and Incapability just before they tell Dr Johnson they’ve burnt his Dictionary…if I may paraphrase, this is the situation five years from now…

What site was this then? …… The site that has taken eighteen hours of every day for the last ten years. My school burnt down during summer school – I wasn’t there, I was at home on a free period addressing comments with the level of toadying not seen since the court of Henry VIII. My father died; I hardly noticed. Cholera decimated the local population, I was writing the Monday Morning Diary. My wife cut off her head and fried it in pasta sauce in the hope of attracting my attention; I scarcely looked up from my monitor except to call for an occasional Iced Tea. My eldest daughter brought armies of lovers to the house, who worked in droves so that she might bring up a huge family of bastards just in the vain hope of making a connection. “So you’re pregnant again, who gives a fuck. I have more important things to do – such as calling a comment reading “WTF is Citizen Kane?” a, and I quote. “quite staggering comment there”…

Jeez louise. Sam is going to one day go bankrupt from the expense of all the tetanus shots he must need at the rate that Allan keeps biting the hand that feeds him. Somebody in the UK better call animal control and clamp down on a wild case of rabies before it turns into an outbreak. Look for the Fish that foams at the mouth, and take care not to stick your hands in its bowl. It may be in the same species as the piranha…

Yeah, I always have to include my little cool-number-8-friend in every list. I call him Luke…

Actually, that was entirely on accident, heh. Periods for me from now on.

Incidentally, as always seems to happen to me when I draw up these darned lists, two films popped into my head after the fact that would absolutely have been included – Richard Kelley’s Southland Tales and Bertrand Bonello’s De la guerre. Ah well, c’est la vie.

I posted my top picks for the 2000s on my blog but I’ve tweaked it a little since then. Here it is:

1. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
2. Zodiac
3. Mulholland Drive
4. In the Mood for Love
5. Miami Vice
6. Traffic
7. Children of Men
8. Michael Clayton
9. Birth
10. Almost Famous
11. There Will Be Blood
12. Memento
13. Before Sunset
14. The Princess and the Warrior
15. American Splendor
16. Lost in Translation
17. The Man Who Wasn’t There
18. Spirited Away
19. Syriana
20. 24 Hour Party People
21. American Psycho
22. Wonder Boys
23. A Scanner Darkly
24. Ghost World
25. The Royal Tenenbaums

Back in January, I posted screen caps of my Top 50 of the decade at that point in time, and that venture is linked on the sidebar. However, with some re-viewings, re-evaluations and a very view omissions, I have now as J.D. has, “tweaked” my 50 to the point that I am now fully satisfied with the numerical order. Three films that weren’t on the original 50 have now moved in, while a few others have dropped off to make room. (Added are UN PROPHETE, RED RIDING TRILOGY, STILL LIFE, 2046 and THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA).

Sam, this may be a typo but you forgot to type ‘There Will Be Blood’ somewhere in there. LOL.

Good list, since your original posting of this I’ve seen a few I had never viewed (mainly the top spot ‘Far From Heaven’, which I enjoyed but definitely not enough to put it at 1), all the films are certainly what I’d call ‘A Sam Film’. Which is all any film fan should aspire to: having a detailed and specific worldview that is articulated in the their favorite films.

“Dreamgirls” is pretty good, all things considered. A fresh, buoyant movie musical about a distinctly American blend of music. Easily better than the likes of “Chicago”, “Moulin Rougue” or any of the other intolerable Western musicals of the past ten years, at least.

LOL Jamie!!! Well, true be said you know me well, without actually having met me as of yet, and you seem to understand my taste and what floats my boat. You know what? You are right! Great though that you enjoyed FAR FROM HEAVEN.

Thanks Bob for that welcome respect for DREAMGIRLS, which Allan never cared for. I am also hiding out here from David Schleicher. If he sees this I’m fried!

Sam told me he dropped RATATOUILLE, HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL, and the Pixar fish movie.

Damn, I tried to make a joke there and I couldn’t even come up with a musical (other then a film for teens) and the name of more then one animated film. Shows where my tastes are. I could on the spot name my favorite ten French horror films of the ’00s though, so I have that going for me at least.

Interesting point there Bob, although I am a rare dissenter with that film.

Maurizio, great work, and thanks so much for imprting your expertise at our humble abode!

I will shortly be leaving again to attend the Tribeca Film Festical, where I’m hearing there may be a demonstration outside the Chelsea Cinemas by members of the gay and Lesbian Community, for what they feel is a blatent insult against their number for they way they are portrayed in TICKED OFF TRANNIES WITH KNIVES. I’ll have a full report over the weekend at the Diary.

I am hoping the usual caretakers here will be handling any comments that may be posted.

Lol, many of my top 25 are the same. A good friend of mine jokes that the more murderous and creatively psychopathic the main characters, the more I’ll enjoy a film. I’m not so sure about that, but it is a little morbid.

To Bob
I know this response is super late to your comment on my list. I came back here to go over the movies I picked (which I wish I could change somewhat) and noticed you wrote about Waltz to Bashir. Not sure how I missed your response since I did write some other comments shortly after. The main reason I placed it outside of the top 25 is the ending. I felt showing the live footage of all those bodies after the mass killing was unnecessary. The movie had already made its point quite effectively that I found the switch to live footage almost exploitive to those dead. I know that if I was killed, in something of that nature, I would not want some filmmaker to use my remains to make or reaffirm his point on war etc. I’m sure to some extent the response the ending elicited from me is what Ari Folman was striving for. It made me depressed and angry at the same time that humans could do such things too each other. I just strongly disapprove of needing to resort to such graphic measures.

Maurizio, I wish I could agree with you, but I find myself in the complete opposite camp here. One of the reasons are think wars are prolonged is because too often, the elites paint the dead as the “glorious fallen”. WW1 would have been finished far sooner had participating countries seen the carnage. In Vietnam, pictures of children running naked with full body napalm burns, or village huts being lit on fire (a person’s back breaking lifetime toil – or some such words by ’60 minutes’ Morley Safer), or the Mia Lai attrocities galvanised the public. And the result was still 3 million plus dead. How many butchered casulities have you seen from the CIA sponsored dead squads of the ’80s, or the two last wars.
The BBC and other broadcasters say it to respect the dead, but really – they have no choice, if they showed the true price of these foreign resource snatching expediations, there would be mass protests on the streets and revolutions. Instead, we get footage that looks like it came from a video game.

Though there are some clear “favorites” emerging — I must say so far this has produced the most divergent and eclectic lists (even in terms of Allan’s countdown thus far) — not surprisingly since this is the decade freshest on everyone’s minds.

Some of the choices do make my jaw drop, though.

Can’t wait to see how this plays out as we get closer to the top of Allan’s list.

Surely some records will be set in terms of participation here at WitD.

Hi! Sam Juliano, Allan Fish, and that Tabulator Extraordinare, Angelo A. D’ Arminio Jr,…Here goes my list…for the year 2000…
1. Ratatouille
2.V for Vendetta…(McTeique, 2005) Recommended by a friend and I agree with him 100%…Highly Recommended!
3.Edvard Munch…(Peter Watkin, 2007) “F” is for finally…and Thanks, to D.H.Schleicher…With me being an artist, but of course!
(Hmm…This film is questionable?!?)
4.Amélie (Jeunet, 2001)
5.The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (Le scaphandre et le papillon)…(Julian Schnabel, 2007) (By the way, he happens to be a great artist too!)

6.Chocolat (Directed by Lasse Hallström, 2001)
7.Good Night and Good Luck…(Clooney as in George and Heslov…2005/2006)
8. In The Valley of Elah…(Haggis, 2006) Thanks, to Tony d’Ambra…
9. Micheal Clayton…(Gilroy, 2007) Thanks, to Tony d’Ambra, again!
10. A Scanner Darkly…(Linklater, 2006)

11. The White Ribbon…Once again, Thanks, to my friend and follow blogger, Sam Ju-li-ano…again and again and…
12. Tim Burton’s Sleepy Hollow…(Burton,1999)
13.Tim Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory…(Which is a much darker film than the original version. (Check out Dahl’s book too…It’s considered a Children book…Hmm…Maybe I have a childheart?!? What can I say…(As I shrug my shoulders and protrude my bottom lip.)
14. Tim Burton’s Corpse Bride (Burton, 2005)
15. Tim Burton’s Sweeney Todd: The Barber of Fleet Street (Burton, 2007)

21. All The Real Girls…Tipping my Fedora in Treadway as in Dean’s direction…
22.In America (Jim Sheridan, 2004) Thanks, to Dean Treadway…
23. Julie and Julia (Ephron, 2009) (Thanks, Sam Juliano, and B.D.)
24.The Departed (Scorsese,2006)
25. The Hurt Locker (Bigelow, 2009) Even though as a rule I don’t like “war” films this one was interesting and the top honour going to a female director was groundbreaking this year.
Once again, I want to thanks, Sam Juliano, for sending this film in my direction.

Also, “The Phantom Menace” was released in 1999, and I’m pretty sure it was a worldwide release, unless you’re in some derelict pocket of the globe that didn’t see it for a full year, the cinematic equivalent of the Battle of New Orleans, or those Japanese soldiers hiding out in caves. If you want to include a “Star Wars” movie, there’s two from the decade in question worth considering.

With the movies you didn’t even put up on your timeline, Fish (“American Psycho”, “Angels in America”), and some of the stuff you did (“King Kong”, “The Lovely Bones”), I can’t say your criteria for consideration really impresses me, at least for this decade. Granted, everybody’s lists are likely to have both gems and stuff others wouldn’t touch, but don’t try to claim you have the world’s longest ten-foot pole.

I’d rather play with fire and sulphur than the likes of your ivory tower despotism. Better to reign in the hot place than serve tables upstairs, especially when the choices are more or less the same above as below, with the exception of a little garnish. The proud Promethean flame is a torch I gladly lift to enlighten minds beclouded by the likes of such hypocratic darkness, even if most of time it does feel a bit like being chained to a rock and gnawed on by eagles whenever you talk.

It is called satire, but you are teflon-coated after all, and I know irony escapes you. To put it plainly your baiting and Uhler’s carping are tiresome. Go and lose yourselves in one of your revered gore-fests.

Oh, don’t worry. I get your parodizing hijinks. And it’s very clever. I’m just saying I’d rather be compared to Dr. Mabuse than an Inspector Von Wenk– hell, on a site like this, it’s high praise to be elevated to the status of a mad scientist. Anyway, horrorshow splatterfests are Jamie’s caviar, not mine. Wait until he chimes in again before badmouthing them.

In seriousness, I’ve always said my taste in all things is the juxtaposition of Stuart Gordon meets JL Godard. The Rauschenberg effect, trash from the street. If anyone can or is willing to degrade Rauschenberg I’m all ears (and eyes). Not all trash is created equal, there’s THE PROWLER (that yes is garbage more or less) then there is AFTERMATH/GENESIS, or Miike, or TROUBLE EVERY DAY.

I don’t need to break my own arms patting myself on the back self-congratulating about how elitist my tastes are. Tony, the one time your favorite term ‘bourgeois’ is actually needed you instead become its physical embodiment. I’m happy to be the self-taught art lover and probably the only one with a high art degree as well. I’ll also be the one able to speak on these shock films with actual viewing experience. These sort of things don’t make it to the suburbs Tony, so I’m more then willing to offer my knowledge.

Don’t blame me for this quagmire, Fish. Tony needs to get over himself, first and foremost. At the very least, climbing down off that high hobbyhorse of his would be a good start to driving the conversation away from bourgeois capitalist ideals.

I’m not blaming you, Clark, it’s not your fault you’re an unequivocal wanker. After your moaning about how unemployment sucks, have you ever perhaps wondered WHY you’re unemployed, it’s nothing to do with brains. You have the people skills of a serial killer.

If someone terminated your existence they’d be able to narrow the suspects down to those who had met you.

Fish, as the confirmed misanthrope mascot of Wonders, you’re the last person entitled to lecture anyone on the niceties of good social etiquette. I don’t claim to be the world’s most outgoing people-person, but I also don’t bother to antagonize every single person I meet, either. Check your short-sighted personal colorings at the door, if you please.

And as for unemployment– don’t even go there. Mostly, this is just a horrible time to be looking for work, especially if you have two degrees, which leaves you more or less overqualified for the only openings that might periodically exist. It also doesn’t help that the two things I studied in (writing and interactive arts) have more or less dried up as viable industries since the economy turned to shit, leaving me with next-to-nil in terms of job prospects right at the time when I graduated. So be a mensch and just leave it alone.

Jesus, with friends like these who needs enemies? Bob, sorry to hear about your recent unemployment… to be young and educated in America right now can be pretty rough. My employment is spotty as well, though as a designer I can seek freelance gigs to always scrape by when things get tough. Hopefully you can get by, and things ease up on ya. I also hope you don’t have to bear anymore kicks while you’re down.

We all can be a spot cranky from time to time but Bob is hardly even close to the worst of the lot around here. It’s one thing to be cynical or dark or anything else like this, it’s quite another to just be an out and out dickhead.

Bob is not that bad. He has strong opinions but I have never found him to be offensive (other than his love for Lucas lol). Unemployment in the US is a disaster right now. Its harsh to blame his personality for a problem that has affected millions. My girlfriend is an employed staff editor at a sizable magazine and she knows people who were laid off that cannot find any work. Print media is a T.Rex waiting for the proverbial asteroid to hit. His difficulties are not unique. Anyone who loves Heaven’s Gate is okay with me. The problem on this site is I have never seen so many narcissistic people congregating in the same space (me included). If everyone was less sensitive the insults would not hold as much weight.

Jamie, what are you, an art designer? Or web designer? My main creative focus (in the endless downtime I have) is game design, mostly working in Flash. Obviously there’s not as big a market for freelance gigs (I’ve actually been scammed a few times that way).

Maurizio, glad to hear that one of my cinematic heresies can cancel out another in your eyes. And sorry to hear about your girlfriend’s troubles– yeah, print is mostly dead nowadays. What’s so sad is how it’s basically kept alive by papers that buy syndicated articles so frequently, killing off their own local flavor and commentators, which often counted as one of the few reasons people read the papers to begin with.

Eh, maybe I should’ve stuck with my original dream all along and been a cartoonist. But then I’d probably just be toiling away on webcomics nobody looks at. Man, being in the internet-transition generation bites.

Bob, I’m studied in fine art/illustration (which has become more of a passion/hobby/dream then anything else), and graphic design. I’ve done a little web, but don’t really like it, so my focus remain in 2D print design. I generally find work with publishing houses, paper companies, individual clients (wide range), and (currently) in advertising. If it can be printed I can of have probably designed it.

Should you need an design services to assist your job search (resume, business card layout etc.) please do not hesitate to ask.

This has got to be a joke — though admittedly there is one movie on there (Avatar) that I wouldn’t totally begrudge someone including on their list (cough cough Sam cough cough). And 8 Mile and Mr & Mrs Smith were marginally entertaining on certain levels and while in certain moods…but….

The top three had me howling —

However, it would be kind of an interesting mix if more people started posting lists like this — imagine the possibilities of the final count! We could end up with No Country for Old Men followed by Lady in the Water! LMAO — oh the humanity!

A “Garfield” movie might’ve held some potential back when Lorenzo Music was still alive to do the voice. Without him, it just turned into an utter long-distance phoned-in conference call of a movie. Breckin Meyer as the terminally nerdy Jon Arbuckle? Jennifer Love Hewitt as his incongruous love interest? A real fucking dog as Odie? Christ. Even Bill Murray doesn’t sound like he gives a damn, and why should he? The movie lacks the cynical charm of Jim Davis’ early years on the strip or the TV specials with Lorenzo Music (“People like that should be dragged out into the street and shot!”). Total waste.

D.H. Schleicher said” DeeDee – believe it or not Edvard Munch was a 70′s movie! It’s faux documentary style surely was ahead of it’s time — its easy to mistake it for something more current.”
LM…Oops! 😳 😆 I’am so sorry…Please! “pardom” not pardon me!
Hmm…Oh! yes, I noticed these words on the back of the DVD box…
…“Edvard Munch was shot on 16mm and has been digitally remastered to high definition from a new 16mm interpositive struck from the original 16mm negative held in Stockholm/Norway 1974…”

But, yet I only paid attention to the year that the film was rereleased which was in 2007.
Hmm…Know wonder the print had a washed-out” look to it (I thought it was just great cinematography…a duh moment in time…right?)
It appears as if I’am doing a lot of confessing today…
…I must admit that I watched the film in a “hurry” in order to add it to my Best Films of 2000 list.

Now, I wonder if it qualify or should I remove the film from my list?!?
By the way, it was rereleased the same year as my fave animation…Ratatouille.

OK, so I’ve finally finished my list. I listed all the films I consider pretty good or that I like for this decade and I ended with just over 100 (hence my list ends on a strange number). I also left off a few horror films I like from this decade to save a little surprise down the line. Anyways, here goes:

This is an absolutely extraordinary, extraordinary, extraordinary list. Love, love, love TALK TO HER, DOGVILLE and THE NEW WORLD in the top 10. But I am really only scratching the surface here. You have an amazing grasp.

I still really don’t get the appeal of either of these movies. Maybe on their own and outside of Cronenberg’s essentials, but certainly not as a part of his canon. Disagree all you like, but for me this was his weakest decade, by far. I really don’t like the mainstream Cronenberg, the guy who makes gritty thrillers from mercenary scripts alongside “The Scourge of Carpathia, the Sorrow of Muldavia”. I prefer the artsy work he did in the 60’s and 70’s, the heady sci-fi horror of the 80’s, and the sex-obsessed literary adaptations of the 90’s. Perhaps we’ll see a return to his best work in that movie of Don DeLillo’s “Cosmopolis”. I will allow that “Spider” was an interesting work from him.

Very happy to see both of these on somebody’s list. “The International” was one of my favorite action movies in a long time; very smart, patiently filmed, and it’s got the signature shoot-out set-piece of the whole damn decade. Blows all those ADHD-filmed “Bourne” seizures out of the water. And Campbell’s film, quite frankly, might just be the best Bond film ever made, an absolute treat of classic, restrained filmmaking.

I like EASTERN PROMISES a lot, more then most. It’s weird because I like all his stuff, SCANNERS, VIDEODROME, but I think when he’s really arty– CRASH, DEAD RINGERS, and M. BUTTERFLY is him at his best. But the new stuff, what you call mainstream, specifically EASTERN PROMISES I think show his worldview the clearest and are actually the most humanist work(s) of his career (he’s taken everything he’s learned and blended it). EASTERN PROMISES and my love for it was no doubt where I was at and where I am at in my life right now (at least my head space), it’s bleak, depressing, and dark. We open the film with a drug addicted still born fetus, and you call it ‘mainstream’. I saw that film twice back to back on a Saturday off from work and I walked home rather then catch the train, I was in a stupor. It connected with me.

I’m actually reading COSMOPOLIS right now, I never have. I can’t wait to see what it becomes, DeLillo’s trademark use of scatter shot narrative will be interesting to see how it works. Either way I can’t wait.

THE INTERNATIONAL I liked, as I am a Clive Owen fan, and that Art Museum shoot out was, the action set piece for me of the 2000’s. Riveting stuff. CASINO ROYALE, I was/am a Bond fan from my youth, so I liked it more then it may merit. I do think it’s a great Bond though, I still like watching it, and I don’t like many of the old ones like I used too. I think Craig is as good as any Bond we’ve had.

FREDDY GOT FINGERED, I was and am a HUGE Tom Green fan. To the point that I’ve written a script called ‘Tora Boring’ about Osama Bin Laden. That’s a slapstick-political-satire, kind of a DR. STRANGELOVE for the 2000s. I wanted Green to play Osama… could you imagine? I think he’s our generations Peter Sellers/Lenny Bruce. he’s awesome, how he got a studio to back him AND let him direct a film I’ll never know. PUMPKIN really completes the trilogy of strange films that close my list.

I see some definite overlaps here with what would be on a “favorites” list of mine (which makes sense, since I don’t think you make or are interested in a distinction between “best” and “favorite”). Love to see 25th Hour up there – it’s one of the few American films to grapple direclty with 9/11 (United 93 is about that day, obviously, but in a different way). Spike Lee took a big risk coupling NYC’s trauma with the night-before angst of a convicted drug dealer, but while the film is not flawless I think this risk pays off big time.

I also really liked This is England – terrifically dynamic performance from Stephen Graham (sad to say I had to look up the actor’s name again – in my defense we’ll just say that I remember him as Combo, he was so good). I enjoyed Michael Clayton quite a bit too.

‘Some good stuff in there, just a few unforgivables’.’ Yes, as I noted it’s both my favorites and best films (I make little distinction), and my apologize for not including THE DARK KNIGHT and SIN CITY.

I feel like I haven’t seen many films over the last decade; so, my list may be missing a few critical masterpieces. That said, I did purposefully leave off Mulholland Dr (I generally dislike Lynch) and No Country for Old Men as I don’t care for either film.

My problem with the 30’s is that there isn’t enough quantity. The French were on fire but Hollywood needed the war before they made more realistic modern films. There is a drastic difference between the 30’s and 40’s in LA. Chaplin was great and the Universal Horror cycle was magnificent but other than I Am A Fugative From A Chain Gang and a few others I find the decade lacking in great American films. Germany was also putting wonderful stuff out in the early days but slowly grinded to a halt with Hitler and UFA’s decline. Italy, Japan, Great Britain, Spain, and the Scandanavian’s would all be a larger force in the immediate future. I would maybe concede that the 80’s were weaker but not the 90’s.

Are we talking American cinema or cinema in general? I think American cinema was pretty awful this decade – an easy contender for worst ever. I’m not saying there weren’t great movies, but they were few and far between and the middling movies were as bad as ever, and a good deal less enjoyable to my eyes. The 80s was less stylish (Bob might disagree), but more fun – and at least its ubiquitous blockbuster franchises were original.

As for Maurizio’s list, I agree 60s was bad for American film (despite the tail end of a strong era in the first year or two, and the beginning of another strong one in the last few years) but for the rest of the world it was a kind of golden era. I’d put 60s at the top of my own best-decades list – there’s few other eras at once so rich, so diverse, and so innovative. It also managed to straddle the history and the future of film in a way no other decade had before, and almost certainly in a way no decade will since.

M. Roca, respectfully disagree, for me the thirties are probably the greatest decade, and easily the funniest. Your characterization of Hollywood in the thirties seems really, really off….Sternberg, Lubitsch, Hawks, McCarey, Chaplin? Not to mention that that it probably marks the pinnacle of the studio system in its ability to turn out such consistently entertaining products.

I heartily disagree. There was some interesting stuff coming out of Hollywood in the 30’s, but the vast majority of it was coming from transplanted European expats, and even then real quality was only ever intermitent. In the 80’s, at least you have genuinely American talents flexing their muscles in cool ways, and lacking absolutely nothing in style, I’d argue. I’ll take the decade of Lynch, Mann, the Coens and the slow rise of the American independant movement, before its peak in the 90’s.

By the way, I tried to come up with a favorite decades list, but it’s too difficult because there are so many different criteria. Even if I try to eschew questions of greatness (how important is influence and originality in judging a decade?), sticking to personal preference (which decade’s films are the best) still leaves a number of questions.

Even if we agree to focus on world cinema in general, do we skim off the cream of the crop and judge by their relative weight, or do we look at the big picture and determine which decade dominated the middle range? Your average film was probably better in the 30s than the 50s, at least in Hollywood – sparkling house styles ensured that even mediocre films were fun to look at in the Golden Age, whereas in the postwar era some dead weight settled on your average film’s mise-en-scene – though at the same time there were arguably more great, visionary directors working than in the 30s.

Do we give American cinema more sway in judging the overall quality of a decade, since in terms of volume and influence it dwarfed most other nations (then again, how does a productive but relatively enclosed industry like the Indian factor in)? Or do we try to judge it, electoral college-style, giving each nation equal weight no matter its relative output?

And this is with all of twelve items to choose from – you can see why I typically refrain from the decades’ polls when there are thousands of contenders!!

See above. Doniphon and Bob’s disagreement seems to stem from whether or not we are judging overall consistency or just the peaks. (Bob might not feel the 80s has better overall consistency, or Doniphon that the 30s had better peaks, but it’s a moot point as their arguments betray different criteria for judgement).

Personally, I’m with Doniphon on this. Due to the studio system humming on all cylinders, your average 30s film will usually contain something – art direction, music, costumes, lighting, star power, etc. – to hold your interest, whereas your average 80s film, if it’s lacking a compelling script or adventurous direction, more often than not falls flat. I suppose one could say an 80s movie is more initially engaging, given that it’s closer to our present culture and visual sensibilities, but once you get past that I think the case falls apart.

Oops – it appears Bob’s disagreement is not with Doniphon at all – it’s with me! To clarify, by American cinema, I mean films produced within the American system (a criteria which is easier to meet in the 30s than in any other decade, since the “system” was as enclosed as it’s ever been, not in terms of rejecting external influences of course, just in terms of resolutely putting its own stamp on the result). So the expat point is kind of moot.

Bob you would really take Thief, Blood Simple and Blue Velvet over Trouble In Paradise, Love Me Tonight and Man’s Castle? What about The Bitter Tea Of General Yen? What about Show Boat? What about Only Angels Have Wings? I’m not knocking you or anything, I just find that hard to understand.

Or it could be pointless to objectively argue subjective opinions on decades? I think the ones we list as ‘best’ or ‘favorite’ say more about our personal tastes then anything about the history of cinema.

For example saying the 30’s was ‘the best’ is rather xenophobic (unintentionally), much of the world wasn’t making films back then, and much wasn’t being discussed or shown anyway. This is ok of course it just makes another idea to contemplate. I almost think that every decade is better then the one that preceded it, even if there weren’t as many ‘good’ films if we stacked them on top of one another (another rather worthless endeavor). Cinema, like all art, is an ever-changing evolution with ‘this years model’ (elvis costello) always being at the apex. Life, more or less, is like this too.

Jamie, I see what you’re saying, and in some respects it’s true but I also tend to be leery of the “This Year’s Model” model as it smacks too much of advertising and short attention spans. Sometimes, this year’s model sucks and last year’s was better…

I’ll also concede that I really have no use for the bread-and-butter genres of the 30’s– screwball comedies and musical extravaganzas. I also don’t really like the works produced by the studio system, for the most part (only “Casablanca” still has any worth for me, and even that movie is sort-of suspect), as they all feel rather generic in their uniform polish after a while. The stuff from that era can come from the expats– Fritz Lang, obviously, above all with underrated gems like “Fury” and “You Only Live Once”– and certainly, you still had a few great American directors like Hawks and Ford. Still, the best work by domestic filmmakers didn’t really arrive ’till the 40’s, when the film-noir finally evolved fully enough to allow more daring stuff to be produced, and when Welles crashed the studio gates.

If I had to name a favorite Hollywood film from the 30’s off the top of my head, I’d probably go with “King Kong”. That’s worth more to me than the filmographies of Lubisch and Von Sternberg combined.

Jamie, first off, I don’t differentiate between favorite films and the best films, and I don’t think we can objectively argue anything, and I’m certainly not trying to do that here. Additionally, saying the thirties are the best decade (read: my favorite) isn’t xenophobic, it just means that I think folks in that time period made movies better than anyone has since. That doesn’t mean I hate Iranians; it just means I don’t think Kiarostami could ever touch McCarey.

Bob, I used to feel similarly to you but when I delved into 30s cinema (not saying you haven’t, just that this was the particular turning point for me) I really came to love its economy and, paradoxically, its ephemera (I think the economy enables the ephemera – the storytelling is usually so tight and the filmmaking so polished, that there’s room for extraneous detail which might seem like padding elsewhere). American cinema in the 30s discovered that if you have the skeleton tight, you can do just about anything with it.

Later epochs messed with the skeleton – and often came up with great results (as well as many messes). I dig that too – indeed, I used to dig it more and in some ways perhaps I still do. But there’s something to be said for the classicism of golden-age Hollywood; if nothing else, it’s provided a terrific template for later innovators to bounce off of.

Jamie/Doniphon/Bob, I DO distinguish between “favorite” and “best” but increasingly am not very interested in mounting the ramparts for the latter – not that it isn’t a worthy cause, just not something I’m really in the mood for these days. I will say I think most of us humor both objective and subjective reasoning more than we may admit – without some semblance of standards or objectivity, not to mention the fact that they are – at least to a certain extent – shared – dialogue dissolves into everyone standing in their own corner shouting at the wall.

Not that this doesn’t describe Wonders in the Dark at times, but I like to think we move beyond that on occasion! 😉

Doniphon, to put it mildly, yes. If you have any trouble imagining someone prefering “Thief” or “Blue Velvet” to “Trouble in Paradise” or “General Yen”, well, I have trouble understanding why people like the latter two movies at all. Talk about bitter tea.

MovieMan you’ve taken me wayyyyy to literally. A film of the past may be better but it’s just part of what’s gotten us here. Every film is about all other films before it, every book is about all books that’s come before it, every painting is about every painting that’s come before it. It’s not really about critical assessments and stacking films, ya dig?

Sure a cop thriller from 2010, may not be as good as the FRENCH CONNECTION, but that’s not the point. Looking to an infinite horizon is.

what do these two stanzas tell you (from good ol Elvis) thinking along these lines?
“Still you’re hoping that she’s well spoken ’cause she’s this year’s girl
You want her broken with her mouth wide open ’cause she’s this year’s girl
Never knowing it’s a real attraction, all these promises of satisfaction
While she’s being bored to distraction being this year’s girl

Time’s running out, she’s not happy with the cost
There’d be no doubt, only she’s forgotten much more than she’s lost”

and

“Oh, I don’t want to disease you
But I’m no good with machinery
Oh, I don’t wanna freeze you
Stop looking at the scenery
I keep thinking about your mother
Oh, I don’t wanna lick them
I don’t wanna be a lover
I just wanna be your victim”

Fair enough Bob. We obviously come from very different places cinematically, and I love Mann and Lynch, and I think those are both great films (although in both cases I prefer their works this decade). As for loving the thirties films, I cannot see a picture of Herbert Marshall without cracking a smile. Can’t say the same of Kyle MacLachlan.

MovieMan:
“Jamie/Doniphon/Bob, I DO distinguish between “favorite” and “best” but increasingly am not very interested in mounting the ramparts for the latter – not that it isn’t a worthy cause, just not something I’m really in the mood for these days. I will say I think most of us humor both objective and subjective reasoning more than we may admit – without some semblance of standards or objectivity, not to mention the fact that they are – at least to a certain extent – shared – dialogue dissolves into everyone standing in their own corner shouting at the wall.”

you see I think this sort of dialogue is great, and what I want from these things. I also think when it’s civil–which all the parties here always remain that way in my opinion–it doesn’t get any better (only when we act pompous is it off putting). Sometimes we do think our opinions are objective but they never are, they are always just a singular opinion or a ‘scholarly’ reference to a collection of personal opinions. I like the former… when you cite a film Joel, I care just as much what you thought, as what the film is… and it would be a shame if you moved away from this form of thinking (also since we’ve talked in the past that you are an aspiring artist you shouldn’t intentionally dull your subjective opinions in this way either, you may find one day when oyu want to return to them you’ll find yourself ‘vanilla-fied’).

Doniphon–I think all of Hawk’s better films came later. I also am no fan of screwball comedies, musicals, or dated melodrama’s that the Hollywood of the 30’s specialized in. The gangster films of this era are unintentional comedies now and world cinema was not as large and still in its infancy. I credited Chaplin but find the rest either overrated or uninterested in discovering. Ford and Hitchcock were still not at their peak. And yes I would take Blue Velvet or Blood Simple over those dated period pieces. Showboat is not for me. Only Angels Have Wings is overrated. Lets compare those and others you mentioned to 40’s classics like The Third Man, The Big Sleep, Out Of The Past, The Seventh Victim, The Oxbow Incident, Double Indemnity, and The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre. Its a total shutout. Hollywood needed the horror of World War 2 to grow up and become less naive. The acting got better as well. I 100% agree with Bob that film noir opened America up to more daring fare. The 30’s are like a naive teenager trying to understand adulthood. The 40’s is when they finally grow up and mature.

1. No, I get what you mean, and agree to a certain extent – I just felt obliged to lodge a general dissent to where the notion might lead, even if you in particular were not headed in that direction. By the way, I love EC but I’m not quite sure how the lyrics pertain. That said, I generally enjoy your wild tangents so keep ’em comin’…

If I knew this list was gonna set off such a enormous thread i’d have been inclined to pose as new posters and put a new one up everyday. Sorry Schmulee. Along with the 80’s I FEEL that this was one of the weakest decades. MY OPINION.

2. My thoughts on subjectivity v. objectivity have been better-expressed elsewhere (including perhaps a thread with you over a year ago, and several long, long ones with Stephen) but suffice it to say my use of “objectivity” may be somewhat idiosyncratic at times. I don’t mean objective in the sense that it can be put under a microscope, but rather that it exists within a commonly-held framework. Within this framework we can have disagreements but the framework exists as an overall context against we can judge. I don’t think we utilize this possibility very often (perhaps out of not wanting to become too pompous, or else not wanting to expend the time or effort, or maybe just not wanting to “prove” anyone wrong if such a thing were possible, as we like each other and our differing opinions…). However, if we did I think we could cokme to some pretty conclusive determinations about what seems to us a “subjective” opinion. So maybe it’s objectivity within a subjective framework (which may be all objectivity ever is anyway, in some sense: even science relies upon a certain perception of the world and linguistic conventions which facilitate what we’re describing). However I think there may be something “objective” about the framework too.

To go off on a related tangent: Stephen caused an outcry by criticizing Citizen Kane, but even he did not step very far outside the framework – taken as a whole, his opinions however offbeat still show a certain sensibility and understanding at work, one which we all share at least fragments of. Wonders in the Dark is kind of remarkable in that way – we’re all very, very different people with very different ideas about particular movies and sometimes even movies in general, but we share an unspoken consensus which actually differs from a lot of people out there. Put another way, Bob might say he prefers 80s cinema to 30s cinema but he isn’t saying “black-and-white sucks.” To paraphrase what you said once, Sam and Allan might be at each other’s throats but they both use and approve of Bresson’s donkey as their icon. You noted that this kind of erudition was actually pretty rare in the blogosphere (I’d add that it’s even rarer to find on a blog that is not lofty and scholarly in tone, nor seemingly focused on an academic context, but that’s another discussion).

If we were suddenly deluged by people who thought the box-office was the arbiter of quality, that foreign films were crap, that westerns were uniformly terrible – I think we might feel more strongly about countering their objections with a mere “that’s your opinion.” But because we all seem to agree on certain fundamentals we can agree to disagree about details and still respect one another’s opinion. For myself, the notion that Fantastic Four is no better or worse than Citizen Kane on any grounds other than personal experience makes me extremely skittish. This doesn’t mean we should abandon our subjective perception is this (as you note) is what tends to illuminate and motivate much enthusiastic analysis, appreciation, and just plain sheer enjoyment. But I do think it serves well to keep in mind a kind of objective yardstick, both for ourselves (we can sometimes surprise ourselves with a movie by going looking for “what others saw in it” – objective investigation yielding subjective enjoyment – and can also defend something we loved by looking into it deeper and finding what it was that motivated our enjoyment, possibly creating the same opportunity for others).

As for what I seek in art – I think it has to do with tensions, between characters, forms, ideas, and also between reason and emotion. I find both subjective, impulsive responses and a more cool, analytical appreciation of what’s onscreen and what went into it both yield enjoyment (though in a sense what we’re discussing our differing subjectivities rather than objectivity vs. subjectivity) and inspiration.

Recently, on the There Will Be Blood thread, I ruminated a bit upon “greatness” but I think the tree fell in the woods when no one was listening. Here it is again, to perhaps cover some ground I didn’t already cover in my already ridiculously long comment:

“If greatness can be boiled down to one element, I would call it the ideal long-term effect. Ideal in that it is a possible reaction, but bound not to occur in every viewer, although it should be accessible if one digs into it (to split hairs further, what is the “highest” effect – i.e. the best possible reaction, and to what extent is it reliant on the work or on extraneous factors, say an association with the viewer’s own life that the movie did not have to do much to facilitate?). Long-term because sometimes a piece of art delights but its effect fades with time, either upon reflection or repeat viewings – ephemeral joy is nice but I do think longevity matters in calling a work “great.” And effect because while the ingredients may be objectivly quantifiable (craftsmanship, meaning, etc.) it’s what they add up to that matters. In this sense, one trains one’s sensibilities but then flies by guts, learn & sublimate the learning so that instinct guides once again – but an informed and developed instinct. Lest someone find this too prescribed, I think this process more or less occurs naturally in a movie-lover and need only be semi-conscious.

I think of the “effect” is a subjective reaction that rests on an objective bed (i.e. controlled effects and context facilitate the response); to be judged, it has to be inverted somewhat – the judgement is lodged in objective terms, but rests on a bed of subjectivity, an assumed consensus about response and values. Kind of convoluted, but there I stand.”

Maurizio, I disagree with much of what you say – but one things bears mentioning: gangster films as unintentional comedies? What makes you think the comedy was unintentional? Cagney always had a dark sense of humor. And I just watched Scarface last night and it was quite clearly intentionally funny – as well as still shocking and brutal in its violence.

Better to see 30s films as children and 40s/50s films as adolescents. They may gain a bit in knowledge of the world and complexity of thought and mood, but also lose the unstressed grace and clarity of childhood and take on an at times unflattering awkwardness – particularly true once wider aspect ratios and color took hold, with filmmakers struggling to make filmmaking dynamic again.

I agree that the peaks of 40s and 50s filmmaking are higher, but just beneath that level I’d say 30s movies have the edge.

Joel– I’m not necessarily saying that 80’s cinema was better than that in the 30’s overall, just that American output in the former is superior. Worldwide, the question becomes a little hazier. There was some truly great stuff from around the world in the 80’s, and thanks to the advent of video, cable television & better theatrical distribution processes, I’d say it was the first truly international decade for cinema. Stuff from Europe & Asia that would’ve been tough to track down in earlier years was able to reach US audiences much easier, and more American obscurities were allowed to flourish throughout independent markets and more readily available production tools (though not nearly as much as we’ve seen in the past decade).

Still, was there anything that really matched the work that guys like Lang or Renoir? Were there any equals to “M”, or “Grand Illusion”? It’s debatable, and to a certain extent not really worth getting into as a serious argument. Overall, I’d say the two decades are more or less equal, with their own differing merits and weaknesses. My main beef before was the question of American cinema, which again I’d say was stronger in the 80’s.

So Bob has no use for the thirties; that’s fair enough, the educated have no use for him, so that evens out nicely. Anyone who could take the 80s over the 30s is frankly asking to be roasted slowly over an open fire for sheer rank fucking stupidity. Only an oemeba could prfer the 80s to any decade, let alone the 30s.

When you consider that included TV entries bolstering all totals from 1950s onwards, it shows you just how any statement knocking the 1930s is in itself utterly ridiculous and worthy of any serious cineaste’s hearty derision.

True, the 1930s was Hollywood dominated, but there are 89 films amongst those 241 that are non US entries, more than the entire 1980s produced around the world including TV.

Bob, my statement on the 30s v. 80s is in light of American cinema – not world. I understand why you think the peaks of 80s America are higher, though frankly I disagree, but can you really say that the dominant aesthetic of the 80s served your average film better than the dominant aesthetic of the 30s? The fluid camera movement, imaginative sets, and crisp economy of the 30s far outstrip the blocky, functional, at-best-flash-in-the-pan visuals of the 80s. And frankly black-and-white, particularly in the hands of Hollywood’s consumate craftsmen, served the average movie better than color, which if used lazily just seems drably realistic.

Fish, I was talking more or less about American cinema in the 30’s, which by and large was a joke. Screwball comedies and musical extravaganzas are nothing but wish-fulfillment wastes of time, especially when you factor in the downtrodden hard truths of the Depression. Warner Bros. was putting out some edgier fare, and a few isolated directors like Lang, true. But for the most part, Hollywood of the 30’s was a supremely ignorant bread-and-three-ring-circus, and the sooner we grew out of that phase, the better. At least the mindless entertainment of the 80’s showed a bit more imagination, but for my money, as I said before, the two decades are more or less equal.

Joel– I honestly think there’s more substance in the dominant aesthetics of the 80’s than there ever was in the 30’s, more opportunities for soul-searching and introspection than guys like Bubsy Berkley or Ernst Lubistch ever engaged in. I particularly like how some directors were able to go under the radar with filmmaking that didn’t necessarily call too much attention to themselves right away, allowing them to slowly burn and burrow their way under an audience’s skin instead of impressing them with kaleidescopic razzle-dazzle right from the start. There’s a delightfully subversive quality to the decade’s greats– “Blade Runner”, “American Gigilo”, “Manhunter”, for example– that offers a great commentary on the burgeoning culture of conspicuous consumption.

Also, as I’ve said before, there was a real indie-movement in the 80’s, while the 30’s was almost exclusively a studio game (and no, the Hollywood studio system was never a good thing). Plus you had true opportunities and avenues for documentaries and artsy stuff, wheras the avant-garde was a little harder to come by in the 30’s (as opposed to the 20’s, say). There’s simply more variety to be found in the cinema of 30 years ago than of the 30’s themselves.

Maurizio, if you think Bob’s the greter writer, that’s no problem, he probably is. But being erudite and talking actual sense are two different things. He waxes lyrical but is wrong 99% of the time. But at least he waxes lyrical.

Don’t make statement about decades of film when you don’t KNOW the decade. It demands attacks of rank stupidity, which were anyway more tagreted at yourself than Bob. Don’t slander what you haven’t even attempted to taste.

I repeat, I DO NO SUFFER FOOLS OR FOOLISH STATEMENTS. Make em, I’ll deride them till kingdom come.

These are all good points, Bob, and among the reasons that I have trouble ranking decades, there are just too many contingencies. That said, however, I don’t think movies are only about “soul-searching and introspection”; I think the seemingly trivial aspects of 30s cinema had a wonderful, artistic effect of their own, namely spinning dream-worlds which remain fascinating not only aesthetically but psychologically – what attracts us (or at least so many) to these fantasies? At any rate, I find a Berkley sequence so exhiliratingly overpowering that questions of soul-searching seem a bit moot. To paraphrase a book I grew up with, “The Great Movies”: “Imagine coming out of a double-feature of Hour of the Wolf and Duck Soup, weary from the anxiety of the first and the belly laughs of the second. One is forced to conclude that the cinema is both a deep, penetrating human art and a vulgar, hilarious medium of entertainment. Both present opportunities for greatness.” Or something to that effect (I’m trying to quote from memory).

As for Hollywood, yes it always played a negative role in American cinema but that doesn’t mean that – particularly in its prime – it didn’t have positive results as well (results which would not have arisen without it). Kind of like… the Catholic Church.

Maurizio, Allan’s gotten under my skin in the past but in the end I think most people find his bark is worse than his bite. Anyway, his attacks tend to roll off, at least from my perception, because he’s much better at advocating for what he loves than criticizing what and who he doesn’t (as he himself often acknowledges).

As for the writing, I’ll stick up for Allan there. I think comparing him & Bob are kind of apple/orange – they are going for different effects with their essays and each achieves them more often than not. I think Allan sometimes compromises his work by shooting it off to fast (he himself says he gives himself it less than an hour & one page immediately after a viewing). A quick revision could easily take care of word redundancy and occasional awkwardness. At the same time, the speed of his output, as well as the depth of his viewing, is what has enabled this enormous backlog of reviews in the first place; and this backlog is what has enabled the decade countdowns, which I think stand amongst the top achievements I’ve encountered in the blogosphere.

Also, his economy and restrained impressionism have, I think, been a good influence on my own writing, which can have a tendency to get long-winded and inside-baseball at times. Yes, he can be a tough customer as Sam likes to say, and you’re not wrong to fight fire with fire when the situation warrants, but I’ll take Mr. Fish warts and all and now’s the time to say so (hint: a further tribute is on the way in a couple weeks…)

Anyway, hopefully the air has been cleared enough for us to proceed to the final dirty dozen smelling like roses, albeit with dirt under our fingernails and thorns in our side. Such is the Wonders way…

MAURIZIO-Allan’s bark is really alot worse than his bit. I’ve had plenty of cynical shots leveled at me by our friend from the U.K. and, though the first few weeks here stung like a bitch, have grown rather a thick skin to ward off assaults in the future.

Now, I’m not saying a blogger should always back down and squeeze into a corner and die like a big pussy, frightened by the bully on the block. No, I say fight back if you really think your views are correct. The problem, with my fight with Allan anyway, is that I often spout out before I do my homework. Often, and this happens when I go up against Sam sometimes, I err in realizing that the intake of films these two have seen is so massive that anythingI refrence can, usually be cross-referenced by them from some other film they, not I, have seen.

Allan’s opinions are very strong, no question about it, but, he’s seen sooooooooooooo many films within the confines of each decade that I find it hard to question his authority on alot of what he says.

Now, personal opinions are another thing. If I like a film and Allan doesn’t, well i chalk that up to personal taste. However, when I question something like what is the most prolific decade, then i better just let the big man take the spot-light. In scenarios like that, I’m dwarfed by the volume of films he’s seen and studied.

BOB CLARK, in alot of ways, is like Allan. The mass of his study is tremendous and his writing skills are detailed and persuasive (I don’t know too many that could have gotten me to reevaluate HEAVENS GATE-they both got me on that one!). But, where I’m more akinned to agreeing with Allan (and I think this is because we’re closer in age and, for the most part, share the same tastes), Bob is a breath of fresh air sometimes with his more, dare I say, “rock-n-roll” sensibilities. There’s a more adolescent sensibility about Bob that, i find, can be both a pleasure and a hinderance.

I have tendency to agree with Allan more times than not and, again, this has to to with his age, and the mass amounts of film that is coursing through the memory centers of his brain. He’s just got so much under his belt it’s hard to refute his facts. Where Bob and I mix is in his way of making you see things from another point of view. Talking like a “dude’, he infuses his theories with a youthful perspective that I find refreshing considering the old ways I have tendency to think. I won’t say that Bob doesn’t perplex me from time to time (he and i have really torn it up on several occasions), but, for the most part, I like to take his reviews and commentaries as an alternate perspective. Combining Allan with Bob, on occasion has warranted a deeper appreciation for films I normally would have nothing to do with.

Writing style-wise. I think they both have faults and admirable qualities. I appreciate Allan’s compact prose and succint way of getting dtraight to the point. However, on occasion, I think Allan’s compactness often does him in on certain films we all feel he could go alot further with. Bob, whose essays are massive, are so finely detailed it’s hard to challenge him in an argument as he’s usually tackled every perspective. However, there are times where I feel he gets a liitle long-winded and wish he’d just tighten up and conclude.

Funny, when I look at all of the writers here (and I don’t include Joel Bocko or John Lanthier as they are professionals in the field), I find that, of the amateurs, the one who really never misses is SAM.

Sam’s style, I feel is more of a combination of both Allan and Bob. He DOES have no problem with going on for pages in his compositions (like Bob), but the fat is usually so trimmed (like Allan) that you can’t say that their was ever run-off at the mouth. In honesty, I feel, SAM is, by far, the best reviewer we got at WONDERS.

If I were to slam Sam on anything, its more about his politics here (always trying to say something nice, coddling a blogger, etc.). Rather than always playing the smiling mediator, I wish he’d just haul off and level someone when they’re completely off the mark (funny, at home he has no problems with leveling me, but then again I’ve been one of his closest friends, compatriots, informants and adversaries for damn near 20 years, so the fimiliarities are massive). His sugary flavor and want to please everyone here is a noble, if not always positive, reinforcement. He’s really the sweetest guy.

That said. I’m glad to see you’re growing a leather hide. Here at WONDERS we accept no single person who can’t take the heat. Good job! You stood tall against the Dragons.

Dennis, what a great comment! I have to take issue with only one thing and that’s the characterization of me as “professional” – I assume this refers to my 6-month stint at the Examiner but the editorial policy there was so lax (which I appreciated, believe me) that to call me a pro for that would be to stretch the term to bubble-gum proportions – unlike, say, Jon, who keeps up a steady stream of reviews at Slate. Yes, officially a professional is someone who gets paid (though on that mark I fall rather short too, sadly) but to me a real pro is someone who can keep up the discipline of a profession. In that mark, I have to cede ground to those who deserve it. Thanks anyway, though…

As for the rest, brilliant analysis of the crew here. I can imagine Bob being somewhat tweaked by the rock’n’roll characterization, but I think the blue suede shoe fits. If Wonders in the Dark didn’t exist, the blogosphere would have to invent it: the very amateurism and “hubris” which it is often decried for are part of its strength, at least when they’re kept in check by the vast stores of knowledge on display, and the remarkable lack of pretension and stuffiness which is really rare in environments this knowledgeable. It’s the vibrant clash of personalities, opinions, styles, and backgrounds which keep the engine humming, and keep us coming back (and of course Sam, not just as a writer whom you pay eloquent tribute to, but as the proprieter and facilitator of the blog who keeps constant vigilance to keep it humming).

In many ways, the blog is like a perfect storm; may the thunder keep rolling.

JOEL-Thank you so much for the kind words, they’re really appreciated and, most likely, will calm Sam down from lambasting me for taking what he might see as “ass-kissing and sucker-punching” him, Bob and Allan.

I’m in total agreement with you. WONDERS IN THE DARK is like no other site on the net and I think it’s precisely because the gloves come off. I feel privledged to have been accepted here (although I wish my skills in writing a proper review were more finely tuned so I could produce and offer more to this community) and, like so many looking to find a path, I find this place my salvation. For all the many people i know and will meet in that great city across the water from me, I have rarely met anyone who could quench my thirst for the kind of interaction, I feel, I so desperately need. Here, I have friends and adversaries who teach me, help me fine tune my thinking. Theories get slapped across the boards and there is ALWAYS someone out there looking on the screen that may be able to add to, or kindly edit, what it is I’m festering in my noggin’….

My criticisms of Allan and Bob, I hope, were not seen as harsh or, in any way, deflammatory. I have buckets of respect for both of these wonderful guys. But, if I am truthful with myself (and this has NOTHING to do with a close 20 year friendship), I just cotten more to Sam’s way of composition (I just wish he’d put credits for cast and crew above his essays, like Allan, to make them look a bit more professional-but that’s a slight, nit-picking beef-i’m sure, with prodding, I’ll convince him to start up the practice). I feel his work is tight without missing aspects crucial to an all encompassing review and, after that, wraps with his final heartfelt feelings. Of all the guys here that I believe can go pro (and I think Allan and Bob certainly could, as well as Tony D’Ambra etc.), I think Sam would be the most likely candidate to get picked up by a periodical or paper (but, again, htis is just MY OPINION).

As for you and your argument on being a pro?????? BULLSHIT! You were asked (or chosen) by a prefession publication to contribute for all to see. YOU WERE PAID (what you were paid, et-al, is not the point). In my book, you have an edge on the guys that only Jon Lanthier can lay claim on. In my mind, you are a professional, published writer. Nothing to be sheepish about at all. Actually a real feather in the cap, so to speak.

Myself. I’d like to write more. Now that I have the computer in my house up and running, I see no reason why i cannot produce (although laziness and my ADD for unimpotant things like clubbing and trying to get laid do get in the way-and I’m a failure in both department-ALMOST-heh, heh! ;-)). However, I’m hoping to exercise and tone my skills and I find that reading the work of the guys and gals here a pure learning experience by example. The more I preruse this site the more I learn.

In conclusion, I feel WONDERS IN THE DARK is something I hope goes on for decades (Sam often comments that it can’y go on forever) , and i think it can. Allan will be bowing out of the daily grind after this count concludes (dropping a review here and there). However, I say that this will give the other wonderful writers and thinkers (I hope mtself included), a little more elbow room to offer pieces that destinctly define them.

I’m looking forward to see what Jamie Uhler, Bob Clark, Kevin Olsen and newly parenting Troy Olsen will unleash with their anticipated Horror film count. I’m sure it’ll be an eye-opener and a pleasure to read at the same time.

We always have Jim Clark with his gigantic pieces covering Lynch, Bergman and Antonioni and, I hope, we’ll always have new stuff coming from you.

Tony D’Ambra is as solid as a rock and you know he’s always got something festering on the back burners. Let’s not forget DEE-DEE. Her creative and often hilarious take on the prefessional interview are always good for a smile.

Finally, we got a few up-n-comers. My dear friend< Mr. Marc Bauer has provided a few hot-topic spins on some of the bigger films to come up in the past few months and, by reading through his commentaries here, I believe Maurizio Roca has a few articles he's busting to see publication here.

The door's open, everyone's welcome to come in and stay a while. This place has SAVED my sanity.

Hey Dennis, lest my silence be seen as agreement. I know you are trying to be even-handed, but you are being too nice all-round. We can all make our own judgements about each other, but I am no pro-in-waiting. I am a hack and a hack I will ever be. Being a hack is an honorable estate; have you met a more rum fellow than Holly Martins?

To steer the conversation back to more pleasant things, if I had to choose a favorite decade of film, I’d say that the 60’s would be a good choice. Just about every corner of the globe had high points in their cinema back then– Japan had Kurosawa at his loosest and most fun and the very best from Hiroshi Teshigahara; Britain had David Lean’s unforgettable epics and the Bond films; Sweden had Bergman at his peak and the adventurous side of Sjoman’s “I Am Curious” films; Italy had masterpieces by Fellini and Antonioni, as wel as Leone’s classic spaghetti westerns; France, of course, had the innovators of the New Wave, Godard especially (the decade’s unquestionable MVP); the US had pros like Kubrick and Frankenheimer delivering some of their best work and the first tentative shorts and features of the Movie Brats. Hell, even Canada saw Cronenberg’s “Stereo” in ’69, and Germany saw the release of Lang’s final work, “The Thousand Eyes of Dr. Mabuse”, in ’60.

I agree with Sam. I really don’t understand how people could think this was such a bad decade for film. It was certainly better (read: more balanced and consistent) than the 90’s, which in my opinion was saved only because of the insane amount of quality that was being produced in 1998 and 1999.

There’s a few here I’m not big on, and several that I am. The one that sticks out for me, though, is “Capote”. I would never have imagined that such a colorful, engaging and entertaining man, talented in writing and speaking at equal turns, would turn out to be the subject of such a dour, humorless picture. Phillip Seymour Hoffman was a terrible choice for the lead– not only did he fail to resemble the writer at that time of his life (he looks rather like someone who ate Truman Capote), but his performance never rose above the level of the lisping hiss of mere impersonation. A truly cold blooded film. I wonder how the other Capote picture turned out.

Aye Maurizio! I just heard the news and was admittedly shocked at how the Spaniards shut down that dangerous German offense! Spain was the favorite from the very beginning of this tournament, but after thaose two 4-0 and 4-1 wins by the Germans, it appeared a Holland/Germany final was likely. I suspect this is Spain’s year, but I feel for the Dutch and may like to see them win.

Both the Dutch and Spain both sport the best collective mid-fields in the world same (both go about 6 deep and all world class)… when picking soccer this is always the thing to look at over anything. As great as Germany has looked they were totally outclassed today.

As such those two mid-fields going head to head should make for an unbelievable final. Spain’s defense is an edge here I think. Should be epic.

The point of the film is to be bleak, BOB. Capote’s life took a turn for the darker the day he entered Kansas. aside from a few friends he made there and a few weeks of hilarity in turning the town to conform to his needs, the period in which he was researching IN COLD BLOOD was marred with alcoholism, deep depression and feelings of absolute guilt.

Upon meeting and, subsequently, knowing Dick and Perry, Truman’s life was turned dark. his fascination in them and the reasons behind their slaughter of the Clutters drove Truman closer and closer to the brinks of insanity and moral dilemma. That he cared deeply about Perry, both spritually and sexually, confused the line of decency he was walking. He wanted the boys to get a fair trial, perhaps even go free (this was in want of getting the chance to be fucked by Perry). On the other hand; knowing how white hot the subject of his book was and how well it was being written(this was confirmed by the round of ecstatic applause at the first public reading of excerpts), Truman also understood that the boys needed to swing for him to get the sensational ending required of such a sensational begining and mid-section.

Everyone associated with Truman, from his publisher to Jack Dunphy (his life partner) to Nell Harper Lee: all of them testify in the biography this film is based on, that this was the most despairing and deadening period in life, one that leaked into his life after the publication of the book and so much so that it drove him into a suicidal whirlwind of drinking and drugs that would end his life in 1982.

As someone who remembers Truman from his innumerable appeareances on Johnny Carson’s THE TONIGHT SHOW, one can get a sense of a man trying too hard to please. That was, in fact, Truman putting on a masking act in juxtapose of the depression he was going through. Phillip Seymour Hoffman nailed the despair and the quiet introspection of the character of Truman and, though may not hve been a perfect physical match for the little author, ave us a rather complete representation of the famous man. He won his Oscar and accolades deservingly.

I suggest you read Gerald Clarks biography on Truman. Culled from years of interviews with Truman and the people around him, its an eye opener to nay-sayers of the film. Bennett Miller (director) and Dan Futterman (writer), i feel, unflinchingly recreated the darkest recesses of Trumans surroundings and inner demons and presented an accurate depiction of this period in his life. For me, CAPOTE stands as a A+ psychological thriller and was clearly my favorite film of that year. i dont mind anyone saying that they didn’t like it. I do mind those that say its cold-bloooded.

” I would never have imagined that such a colorful, engaging and entertaining man, talented in writing and speaking at equal turns, would turn out to be the subject of such a dour, humorless picture. ”

This is where you err, Bob. The fact that its of this period in his life does not warrant anything other than a colorless and humorless film. there are some hints as to Trumans wit and flamboyancies in scenes at the NYC parties and at the dinners at the Dewey residence but, for the most part, Truman’s journey to Kansas was anything but fun. No, no, the film-makers got it absolutely right.

I don’t know– it just sounds like the contraditions you’re talking about were probably better represented by “Infamous”, where Toby Jones was allowed to show the lighter side of Capote, as well as all the dark, depressive and manipulative stuff. “Capote” is a one note movie. The most interesting thing about it, for me, is that it was written by the little brother from “Judging Amy”.

I doubt Dan Futterman would like to be best remembered for his work on that forgettable show. Most network television should be shown to prisoners as a sub-mental form of torture and Judging Amy was one of the worst of its kind. Rather his turn as Robin Williams son who drops the marriage bomb on the all gay house in THE BIRDCAGE or his Academy Award nomination for penning CAPOTE would probably be seen a better high-water marks for him.

One note? NO. Capote is a riveting look at deepening despair and regret. it also walks a tight-wire on morality. the should i/shouldnt i question that is raised towards Truman is fascinating. he wants his cake and eat it too. he knows the book is dynamite and that his seperation from the boys will get him the fame and riches that come with the success of a monumental hit (IN COLD BLOOD still sells milions of copies every year). its this gradual tug-of-war for Truman’s soul, which he sells down the road, that makes the film so riveting.

Ok, so you didn’t like it. you wanted to see the more flamboyant Capote. i suggest you stay with INFAMOUS or rent the BEST OF JOHNNY CARSON.

No big deal. I just POLITELY disagree. I think CAPOTE is a tremendous little low-budget flick.

Maurizio, you think of corruption, where do you think of? Italy. Berlusconi, politicians, right down to bribed referees in football games, not to mention the diving that demeaned the once beautiful game. They invented it all. Others may have refined it, but tyhey invented it. Now, that is little to do with genes, rather an accident of geography, because that’s where the Church took root. Ancient Rome’s Senate probably invented real corruption, but the Catholic Church manufactured it and organised crime. Indeed, Catholicism has effectively syndicated crime. Which are the most systematically corrupt countries in the world – the Catholic ones. Reason? They can get away with anything and go to confession on Sunday and be forgiven; there’s no fear. In microcosm, which city in the UK is associated most with crime – Liverpool. And which city is the Catholic centre of the country. You guessed it, the place where going straight is defined as “only nicking from Protestants.”

Besides, I happen to KNOW Sam a little better than you and know what I’m talking about. The last time he confined to any rules he was still inside his mother’s womb, he’s cut more corners than a Formula 1 car through a never ending chicane.

All religion is corrupt. Don’t for a second think Protestants are any better. Death is life’s biggest mystery. What waits for us after we expire only Darren Aronovsky really knows!!!! I won’t get into some of the ugly logic your trying to peddle above. I’m just happy that I don’t agree with you.

“In microcosm, which city in the UK is associated most with crime – Liverpool. And which city is the Catholic centre of the country.”

Allan, that’s the same argument English Protestants used as justification for oppression and murder of the dirty Catholics for hundred of years. You regularly criticize Americans for their racism and xenophobia in your reviews, which makes your comments here seem especially vile and hypocritical to this Irish Catholic.

I’m not saying protestants are any better now, after all, they invented puritanism and thus, by proxy, fascism, but the Catholics came first. And I’m accusing myself here, Maurizio, I am technically a Catholic.

The point is that Catholicism breeds on poverty, hence many of the most poverty stricken areas on the planet are Roman Catholic, a mixture of forbidding birth control leading to overpopulation, leading to starvation, poverty, resultant crime, from which they received divine absolution every Sunday for the price of a few Hail Marys.

If the Catholic church would allow – indeed, encourage – birth control, slowly but surely, it would be the biggest contribution they have ever made to humanity. I’d go further, if one had the opportunity to go back in a time machine and had the opportunity to kill any individual under carte blanche, most would take Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot, someone like that. I wouldn’t, I’d nominate Christ. It’s the Machiavellian in me, he’s brought more strife and trouble than ANY individual since the dawn of time. I’d quite happily burn in hell for murder if it meant he had never, EVER lived. Christianity brought down the Roman Empire by internal apathy, brought mortal individuals to thrones they felt they had a divine right to, caused mass subjugation of the populace of countless nations because it’s God’s will, helped bring about Islam by proxy, had a hand in more holy wars than Saddam Hussein could dream of, the hate of the crusades that lasts a 1000 years, countless religious wars that still rankle today, saw Galileo, Copernicus and numerous other thinkers treated as outcasts, put back mankind’s evolution by around 100-200 years, saw entire indigenous races massacred in Central and South America in the name of gold and God, said nothing as fascism rose up in its homeland and even now allows organised crime to hide behind its ever-protective cloak. The Vatican is the greatest criminal organisation that has ever existed on planet Earth.

This thread has totally jumped the shark. We cleared Air Jaws of South Africa. Best we go back to just insulting each other without the ultra broad strokes towards whole segments of the human population. Other than Paul The Octopus noone is always right. I’m waiting for Sam to chime in and keep the children in line.

Basicallym Jamie I have nothing against religion as an idea. Religon should be there to give people a sense of calm, of purpose, of belonging, and a sense of order. But you don’t need religion to know the difference between right and wrong, and organised religion is, in general, not a good thing, to put it mildly. For genuine Catholics who are good people and wouldn’t dream of hurting anyone, which must apply to around 90% of them, then good luck to them, but it’s those who have corrupted it.

Well divorcing it from ‘an idea’ and ‘an establishment’ isn’t possible, probable, and if one could it probably wouldn’t do a whole lot. Bringing ‘purpose’ and a ‘sense of calm’ and ‘order’ are all reasons to steer very clear of it. I suppose I secretly see the world as quite a bit more bleak and senseless then WitD’s self-proclaimed misanthrope.

If you want reason, order, or belonging, start a club, become more rooted in the individual. Joining an already existing (flawed) one is cheap, easy, and incorrect. But hey that’s just me.

I can’t write as well as some of you but I’m really good at math. Is it not better to say 99.9%. By inferring that 10% are evil or not good you are condemning over 110 million people lol!!!
Catholic membership is 1.1 billion at last count.

The followers or the masses are whatever, it’s the beliefs I find vile, incorrect, highly illogical, and very egotistical. I don’t care if 10 belief it or 110 billion, is it the numbers that make the absurd notions and conclusions more correct? or the actual validity of the assertions?

Oh and BTW Maurizio, you’re a fine writer and respected film fan opinion around here (to me at least).

Yes, I remember the last time this particular meme reared its head. I found it strange then, and still rather strange now. The dots are connected between Catholicism, particularly the confessional sacrament, regional “attributes”, and sociological phenomena a bit too tightly for my taste. Way too many other factors to consider, I think, for us to pin all that on Catholic Church. More probable that Catholicism overlaps with other phenomena that cause crime, or that it interacts with these other phenomena, but you’ve got to dilute that (anti-)holy water just a bit.

Btw, can I call you Allan the Christ Slayer from now on? In all seriousness, blaming Jesus for the ills of Christianity makes about as much sense as blaming Michael Cimino’s movie for the Heaven’s Gate cult. Most of Jesus’ teachings have nothing to do with what his followers did, and were often exactly the opposite. I think if he had never existed, people would have found some other person to pin their excuses on – maybe Brian from the Monty Python movie.

Heck, if you’re going to hold Christians responsible for all the evils of the world and Islam to boot, why not go all the way back to the big daddy monotheists, the Jews? Somehow I think that might play even less well on this board than knocking the Papists…

Incidentally, I’m a lapsed Catholic myself so I get the resentment of the institution – ain’t no believer like a spurned believer (and I’m surprised you didn’t bring up the current sex scandal in your litany of official sins). Aesthetically, I find Catholicism quite appealing and it has a number of positive strands. But at its core is a wrongheaded idea, the notion that one institution and one individual has a monopoly on spiritual truth. That’s where I stand anyway.

As for religion writ large, religion is just the tip of the iceberg, the underwater portion being spirituality. The spiritual sense exists for a reason – it refers to something very real, albeit hard to put in concrete, rationalistic terms which is why religions often become ossified and beliefs misdirected. Best I think, rather then dismissing religions altogether, to go rooting around for the truth amongst all the clutter.

Religion is too touchy an issue. Its always best to leave the topic alone. While I agree to a certain extent with what both of you are saying, I think the Pandora’s box that gets opened is never worth the trouble. I’m one of those guys that agrees with alot of what Bill Maher says (though I am not an atheist) on the issue. I prefer to to lead a good life and see what happens when the time comes. I have a little gamble in me so the mystery of it all is somewhat interesting. Most religious people are just scared to die and bound by tradition and faith. These are not bad things to possess if it gets you out of bed every morning. Jesus is not what makes me wake with a smile on my face at dawn but who am I to judge. As long as people can learn to not force their views and beliefs on others everything would be fine. I just got tired of this subject……..my next 135 comments will focus on film, music and soccer!!!!

MovieMan, us atheists call what you speak of here as ‘religion ala carte’. I find that ‘picking and choosing’ very bad. ‘Bad’ is generic I know but if I spoke like I want to on the matter I’d come off as prick-ish and soap box-ish. So I won’t, but I think you get my point this way.

Jamie, it’s also called being a “cafeteria Catholic”, though frankly, I don’t think that’s a bad thing. People can be mixed on their religious beliefs and perceptions just like they are with their political doctrines. If you want to have an open mind, sometimes it’s best to have a bipartisan soul.

Bob, if we’re so eager to throw so much out, why not throw it all out and start over? As individuals and as societies/cultures.

Didn’t THE NEW WORLD just get spotlighted? Here’s our chance… instead we lug this stuff around like an albatross because we’re always told to respect tradition/formality way to much. It’s a shame really.

Jamie, you misunderstand me. It’s not about picking what we like the most, it’s about developing sharp eyes and ears, and determing what all the sound and fury really signify at bottom (and believe it or not, it’s rarely “nothing”).

And I’m far from a cafeteria Catholic. Like you, I recoil from the idea of having one’s cake and eating it too. I’m a Catholic insofar as once baptized/confirmed you’re stuck for life, but in the sense of a practicing, believing Catholic I am not. And that’s precisely because I have no desire to take part in communion if I do not follow the precepts of the church and I do not. In a sense, I have too much respect for the institution, at least in one sense, to bend its rules to my own liking. I don’t accept it, hence I’m out.

Also, re: The New World, it should be pointed out that no one in that movie re-invents the wheel and no actual new world is “discovered.” Rather, pre-existing worlds are seen with fresh eyes – not just John Smith in Virginia, incidentally, but Pocahontas in England, too (the film is more ambivalent about “civilization” than I initially realized).

I guess I’ll stick with the cafeteria approach, for the most part. I occasionally go to mass and try to take it seriously when I do. At the same time, I don’t think I should have to be a slave to the church’s political stances on birth-control and gay people (on abortion I’m 50/50). What’s worse are those who go to church and pray every Sunday, but then think nothing of screwing over their fellow man the rest of the week. If you want to call yourself a good Catholic, or at the very least a good Christian, you can’t just give lipservice to things like charity and good deeds, and then practice against the very thing you were preaching.

Granted, I probably have a hard time reconciling any kind of Catholic identity with the fact that I also read the Tarot, but at the end of the day I’m happy with balancing a mix of taking things seriously with relaxing any kind of standards. If I’m going to Hell in a handbasket, at least I can pack some snacks.

Yeah, Bob, I should probably note that while this is my standard for myself, it’s not something I use to judge others. Most practicing Catholics I know have issues aplenty with the church (though I know one or two, I’m looking at you Grandma, who apparently don’t have any!). It’s really for each individual to decide. For myself, I feel that attending mass and following the ritual would be allowing myself the comfort without accepting the responsibility. But of course it’s all in how you look at it – and your interpretation makes sense too, so I don’t mean to suggest otherwise. I’m like that with other personal principles too, kind of severe with myself but – at least as far as I’m consciously aware – not at all disapproving of those who operate according to different ones (I only object to abject hypocrisy and cafeteria Catholicism does not fit that bill to my eyes, though the piousness/wilfull cruelty dichotemy you note definitely does).

Joel, that’s pretty much what I mean. You don’t have to agree with all of a religion’s tenants to be a part of it– it just becomes your responsibility not to keep your mouth shut about those disagreements you have. Frankly, I think it’s one of the healthiest things you can have in a faith, as reform starts from the bottom up. Luther himself is widely reported to have wished, on his deathbed, that he had remained within the church and tried to affect meaningful change from within.

God, I didn’t know I was amongst so many lapsed Catholics around here! I gotta go take a shower! (just kidding of course)

MM I think you might have again taken my NEW WORLD reference a bit to literal. Think of John Smith’s internal monologues only, the hope, the desire… the ultimate failure of it because people bring, and refuse to discard unwanted, untrue hateful dogmas that are centuries old. Why is tradition respected over everything else? Damn, be an original subversive for once that puts reality and respect for others over everything! (again I say this half with a soft poke in fun to make it go down easier)

Yes I am staying out of it Allan, but unpleasantness of this kind has me deeply saddened. Maurizio, you are right to look to me for some guidance here, and I’m afraid I’ve let some people down. I was hoping that by remaining silent it would all go away, especially as the history of this site has proven that everyone will return.

There’s a whole load of ugly hot-air and hypocrisy running through this subthread, but perhaps the thing that bothers me the most is the way that the sacrament of confession and the absolution of sin has been twisted for the sake of argument into a kind of spiritual carte blanche. First of all, this is something that Catholics have been wrestling with and debating for centuries, with some saying it lets people off the hook and others insisting it’s an invaluable article of faith, essential for addressing the falibility of man in a world ruled over by divine morality. And yeah, you had guys like Luther ultimately rebelling against the church and its system of tithes and indulgences, but it’s important to remember that what they were protesting was not really the notions of confession/forgiveness themselves, but rather what they’d been perverted into after years of systematic institutional bureaucracy. Corruption is only a by-product– red-tape leaves sticky fingers.

At its heart, the whole notion of absolution only really works at all if the sinner is absolutely penitent for their transgressions, and willing to pay restitution and make up for what has been done. Without making penance, repenting your sins is meaningless, and in the end it wasn’t really the institution of confession in and of itself which perverted everything, but the insitutional monetization of church servives that did. If you want to argue about the relative worth of the sacrament of confession, it’d probably be better to raise the moral responsibility a member of the church has to the community they live in when a serious crime has been admitted to with the expectation of anonymity– this is an especially touchy subject given the allegations of church cover-ups regarding cases of child molestation over the years, but fundamentally it’s the same no matter what kind of crime is committed or who the perpetrator is. I might argue that a confessor’s expectation of privacy ought to be dependent upon a demonstration of their genuine repentance, best shown by giving yourself up to the authorities, although that would pretty much render the whole secrecy question rather moot. Furthermore, where would one draw the line regarding which transgressions require reporting and which don’t? Would it be as simple as the difference between mortal and venial sins, or would it be something more, or less? To a certain extent, I’d like to think there’s something worth admiring in one of the few places where one can still keep up an expectation for privacy, an asylum of spiritual safety in our cynical world, though I can honestly see the faultlines of frustration running deep.

Perhaps I’m just not willing to throw the baby out with the baptism water because, over the years, I’ve come to appreciate Catholicism not wholly as a religious dogma but rather for its philosophical merits. Along with absolution, I find the very idea of sin itself to be a rather liberating concept, as it ties a man’s spiritual destiny to their own concrete actions. You may very well be going to Hell when you die, but at least you earned the ticket yourself, rather than it simply being handed to you on the grounds of Lutheran intentions (where you could live a good life but still wind up damned for a faulty belief) or Calvinist predestination (where you could live a good life and have perfect faith but still wind up damned for pulling the short straw in the cosmic lottery). This is one of the reasons why Catholicism has such an emphasis on performing good deeds, while Protestant faiths can sometimes be a little more lax (at least on paper– there’s a healthy amount of charity and good will done by the practicioners of pretty much all denominations, no matter what’s outlined in their scriptures), and it’s one of the reasons why the philosophical content of Catholicism feels much more rewarding and humanistic to me nowadays than it did when I was younger and all I could see were the backwards conservative moral values.

Now granted, I’m not really the ideal one to argue for or against this or any other church– the most religious things I do nowadays are watch “The Last Temptation of Christ” or setting up the decorations of the family’s miniature Christmas manger to include Yoda standing among the Magi (sure, he doesn’t have any gold, frankincense or myrrh, but I’d say he qualifies as a Wise Man). But I do know that any of the articles of faith being so casually dismissed as instruments of institutional corruption are a hell of a lot complicated than even their adherents would believe, and that there are plenty more which could be twisted to fit some ideological argument or another. If the abuse of confession can be held responsible for cover-ups and get-out-of-Hell-free cards, then predestination can more or less be blamed for all kinds of ammoral behavior, especially on the part of white-collar WASPS and bluebloods from any part of the world, who don’t see their actions being tied to their spiritual destiny at all. And while I can agree that religious institutions, involving as they do the concentration of power to a point of absolutism, will always tend to breed some form of corruption after a long enough time, we shouldn’t blame the religion itself for the problems, just the institution. It doesn’t matter if you’re talking about a church or a computer, but you should never look for a divine source for the number one cause of strife in this world– human error.

Jamie, the “unwanted, untrue hateful dogmas” are not imposed from without, they come from within, from the very same place that the hopes and dreams come from. No alien force imposed them on the human race, they are a part of human nature, facilitated to varying degrees by environment and culture – which is itself conditioned by environment and circumstances. Tradition is worth investigating rather than disposing of altogether, because it derives from some necessity – either something which has become irrelevant, or perhaps something that hasn’t.

At the same time, not to seem contradictory with my talk of where values come from below (since I just pointed out that their original source is “within”), these dogmas ARE facilitated by our surroundings. The form they take is determined not only by the motivating factor within but the societal factors without (which itself derives both from environmental conditions and human response to said conditions). However, the thing is that the “good” as well as the “bad” dogma are both psychologically motivated and historically and socially conditioned – so one has to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I questioned the concept of the “new world” not to be overly literal, but to point out that there’s really no such thing – and such a point is relevant to your encouragement that we drop everything and start from scratch. There is only the “real world” and what we do with it. Our philosophy and openness are both important, but so is a knowledge of where we come from and what conditions our existence and paradigms. Often times what we think is a blank slate is, in fact, only an unexamined one.

Keep in mind I say this as someone rather devoted to notions of discovery and making a fresh start, so I say this to remind myself as much as anyone else! Anyway it seems that in seeking a “new world” you would want to retain reverence for at least two principles: “reality” and “respect for others.” I would ask in return: a) what is “reality”? what has conditioned your opinion of said reality? and b) where does this desire for “respect for others” come from and how is it manifested?

Many values which we may treasure, including liberty, freedom of thought, the very ability to start from scratch are historically conditioned and not taken for granted universally in all cultures. That doesn’t mean they’re wrong, or don’t have universal application (I am not a relativist), merely that a fresh start which includes these values is already somewhat weighted with the burdens of traditions. Rousseau’s notion of the “state of nature” did not derive from actually existing in said state, but from living in and learning from the very culture he hoped to reject. All interesting food for thought, I think. The conversation continues!

I can see that despite my efforts, the comment still seems somewhat contradictory – beginning by saying that human nature is the obstacle to a new world and ending by saying cultural conditioning is. So let me try to be succinct and clarify: both “nature” and “nurture” (which is itself shaped by “nature”) offer both the incentives and the impediments for the utopian impulse. The good and bad values and dogmas cannot be so easily detached and are deeply interconnected: the peaceful teachings of a Jesus led to wars in his name, meanwhile brutal destructive wars led to human development and happiness. This is not to say the end justifies the means just to caution that good intentions and good results are not the same thing. Best to recognize our flaws and attempt to keep them in check rather than try to “overcome” them altogether – to bring things full-circle this is where Bob’s notion of the value of confession comes into play.

I agree with what you say here Joel, (I might not take so many various avenues to get there but whatever). You somewhat say what I’ve been saying. The world is to be defined by the individual, a philosophical blank slate. Sure the physical world isn’t one, but the metaphysical one should be treated as such. If it isn’t it is just someone bowing to tradition, or treating something sacred that isn’t inherently sacred (after all nothing is–and this gets to film canons I spoke on a little the other day too).

this is as simply as I can state it, and when the world is approached like this, Messiah’s from centuries past and ceremonial dinners really have no meaning to the individual (then then therefor the culture). The difference in cultures you speak of just highlights this point, how trivial it all actually is. We should look to personally create our own traditions, and customs and they should die with that individual person. From here biology would (somewhat) take over, ethics could be determined by what best benefits the species (and plural species). Showing compassion benefits us all.

“Jamie, the “unwanted, untrue hateful dogmas” are not imposed from without, they come from within, from the very same place that the hopes and dreams come from. No alien force imposed them on the human race, they are a part of human nature, facilitated to varying degrees by environment and culture –”

I would say that I don’t agree with that, it’s not human nature to believe any of the theist dogmas. It’s not human nature to belief human sacrifice for example (or anything else these religions purport when you break them down further). They have come from alien forces, the alien force of tradition, something that exists before we are born and shackles us at the arms, legs, and brains into giving it credence when we are born. And it deserves none. So I guess I do break from what you say here quite a bit.

I have often argued to myself that all the high-minded effusiveness about cinema as art is bunk. This thread serves to confirm it. The great cineaste is as likely to be as bigoted as the next guy. Spare me the agony and the ecstasy next time. Compassion is true faith from whomever it comes.

Was it really necessary to respond to what Tony said here? He ventured a valid opinion, and it should be left as that. We’ve had enough contentiousness teh past few days–let’s get our mind on the rest of teh countdown! Geez!

No worries guys. Allan, isn’t that what I said? My dear mother and father never read the Bible and had a simple faith, but taught me to respect a man by his actions not his beliefs. Compassion is individual not organized, and not a matter of philosophy or faith. I am no apologist for any church.

Yes, compassion. I agree Tony. I’ll try and remember that the next time you feel the need to constantly insult any of us posters that are ‘beneath you’ (I think Bob, Joel, and I have all been steady targets). But hey this is when high minded virtue meets real life, real interaction…. it disappears like dust in the wind.

If you want me off the site, say so and clear the air. What has been your singular contribution here? An illiterate and incomprehensible paean to Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds is about all I can recall.

Interesting that some of these recent lists have a few horror films on them (the Mist, Let the Right One In, Drag Me to Hell, The Descent, ect), I always like Horror represented in these alongside other masterpieces, but I’d count all those films in the bottom 8-20 (if at all) range for horror in this decade. A decade that is perhaps the greatest horror has ever seen (at least as good as the 70s). Just curious to me.

<i.I can’t wait to offer some really out there new horror during the horror countdown…

Oh dear God, you mean “Meet the Fockers” don’t you? Gives me the complete heebie-jeebies just thinking of Dustin Hoffman and Barbra Streisand getting it on. I mean spawning Ben Stiller was bad enough without playing dice with the menopause.

Of course, I myself have THE DESCENT and LET THE RIGHT ONE IN as my top two horror movies of the 2000’s — though this is probably the decade when I’ve watched the least amount of horror. You’ll have to send your list of better stuff my way!

I think the detours are what make this blog so interesting, though, and end up enriching the inevitable film-centric conversations as well. That said, agreed insofar as insults and wackiness can make one cringe…

It was a rough day David lol!! Best you crashed the party late. We ran out of beer and everyone went ape shit. My final revised list will be up this weekend. I might add capsules to all 25 movies just to be different. I think the guy Sam hires to tabulate is waiting for me in a car outside to blow my face off.

I have hesitated to submit a list because I do not feel I have seen enough yet but Allan is entering his top 10 and I am caving in.

1 There Will Be Blood
2 Assassination of Jesse James By That Dirty Little Coward Robert Ford
3 Attonement
4 No Country for Old Men
5 Zodiac
6 The Pianist
7 A History of Violence
8 The Diving Bell and The Butterfly
9 Lust Caustion
10 Letters From Iwo Jima
11 Donwfall
12 White Ribbon
13 Gangs of New York
14 Mullholland Drive
15 In the Mood For Love
16 The Departed
17 Avatar
18 Monsoon Wedding
19 Minority Report
20 I’m Not There
21 Match Point
22 Far From Heaven
23 Persopolis
24 Femme Fatale
25 Before the Devil Knows Your Dead

Ok I’m going to post my final 25 before Allen gets into his top 10. I did rewatch every single film on this list along with many others in the last two months. My first attempt was rushed and I included some films I find deeply flawed now. I decided to leave out Band Of Brothers due to the fact I wanted to include only feature length works. I will not apologize for my reliance on neo-noirs and films that stylistically hark back to that favorite genre of mine. While their is some fine tuning, the bulk of my original list remains unchanged.

1. Zodiac
2. There Will Be Blood
3. The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford
4. No Country For Old Men
5. The New World
6. The White Ribbon
7. Mulholland Drive
8. Cache
9. The Lives Of Others
10. The Prestige
11. Mystic River
12. A Prophet
13. AI Artificial Intelligence
14. Mesrine
15. The Man Who Wasn’t There
16. Munich
17. Che
18. Red Riding 1974
19. Grizzly Man
20. Werckmeister Harmonies
21. 3 Months, 4 Weeks, Two Days
22. Man On Wire
23. The Illusionist
24. Russian Ark
25. The Return (2003)

Glad to finally see somebody else put “Waltz With Bashir” within voting distance. One of the most overlooked, taken-for-granted flicks of the decade, and my vote for the most impressive animated effort.

Really? For me WWB was one of the most overrated films of the entire decade. The one film that does fill me with sadnes in Maurizio’s nearlies is The Black Dahlia, sadness at which might have been if Fincher had been allowed to make his 3 hour version in black and white, or if at least de Palma’s full cut had been released. There’s the butchered body of a great film in there, but it’d need more than all the king’s horses and all the king’s men to put that Humpty back together again.

Agreed Allen that Fincher would of most likely made a better film. But then he might not have made Zodiac. The trade off is more than welcome. The Black Dahlia is beyond flawed but I find it oddly fascinating in a weird unexplainable way. The acting is total shit across the board and the plot while not incomprehensible is far to convoluted for its 2 hour running time. A directors cut may or may not improve the overall movie. My main interest in the film though is that visually and technically it is a wonder to behold. The scene where the Dahlia gets discovered has been already praised by many. The whole picture has cinematic flourishes that are inspired and well directed. The B/W Elizabeth Short screen tests are very powerful and have burned a place in my mind’s eye. I also love the noir “feel” of L.A. and it’s borrowing of that genre’s tropes. It has a dreamlike vibe I enjoy immensely. If the movie was better acted, less convoluted, and didn’t give in to the out of place surrealism in spots it would of made the top 25. As such it remains a guilty pleasure.

Yeah, mostly taken for granted as a “Waking Life”/”Scanner Darkly” style rotoscoped-animated film, with the substance of its surprisingly clever and playful meditations on memory drowned out by the political criticisim of Israel, which made it cinema non grata to a lot of commentators. To think that fluff like “Persepolis” was given more notice than Folman’s film was disappointing to me. I’m just glad he’s now tackling a Stanislav Lem book with the same aesthetic approach.

Not looking for a fight but how is Persepolis fluff? My only knock on Brashir as I mentioned earlier in this countdown is the switch to images of the massacre at the end. In my opinion, they were not needed.

As I look over your list I see plenty of fluff as well. I never realized you have G.I. Joe ranked in the top 100!!! My favorite toys as a kid but………I do find you to be very amusing. The MVP of this site actually.

It’s fluff because, like “Sin City”, the movie didn’t really add anything new, except putting the imagery of the graphic-novel into motion. Sure, it’s nice, and to a large extent a more attractive way to present the author’s story, but having already read it in comics form, it didn’t really offer enough to impress me as a film. I also have gotten a little bored with the story itself, frankly– there’s a long stretch of Oprah’s Book Club-style personal sob-story navel gazing in the latter European stretch, something that’s made even worse in the film by the rote “Eye of the Tiger” sequence. At the end of the day it’s cute, fleet and meaningful enough, but I could do without out it. I sort of wish she’d followed Art Spiegelman’s example with “Maus” and kept it on the page, where it belonged.

As for WWB’s ending– count me among those who feel opposite the way you do about it. At the very least, I’m glad you still felt the movie was strong enough even with your reservations about its closing.

Well I’m not into comics or graphic novels so I’ve only seen the movie. I can’t critique it from that particular angle. I guess compared to the intense nature of most of my other films, I went with something a little lighter. I don’t consider it fluff but it definitely has a more positive tone. The ending of WWB is a very small part of the overall film. I know that some dislike the film for its ending but I am able to overlook a minor flaw (in my opinion at least) that does not consume too much running time. Its not like “Up” that has an astonishing 10-15 minutes but then deflates slowly into an average picture for a way longer duration. Snake Eyes was my favorite character as a kid. I also loved Tomax and Xamot. Still couldn’t find the drive to go see the film though. I would say that all of my list is fluff free. I’m a pretty miserable bastard when it comes to cinematic tastes. Thats why screwball comedies and musicals are generally avoided. I do enjoy 42nd Street and Golddiggers Of 1933 to a certain extent.

Well, that’s all fair. One man’s “Golddiggers” is another man’s “Goldfinger”. Interesting comparison with “Up”, where I’m with you all the way. It really would be too bad if anyone wrote off all of WWB for its last minute or two. And I understand including “Persepolis”, it’s not a bad movie. It just offered me nothing new. That tends to happen when a cartoonist adapts their own work for an animated film (the exceptions might be Miyazaki on “Nausicaa” and Otomo on “Akira”, though both have to cut/condense more than I like).

As for “GI Joe”, I’d say it has about the same level of quality as a Brosnan Bond flick– way better than any of the Moore flicks, nowhere near as good as most of the Connerys.

I’m surprised looking over the lists how many people have added Zodiac. I think it may make the final WITD list!!! I remember falling in love with that film when I watched it on the big screen that summer night. Many people were disappointed it wasn’t about the serial killer, but that was where its greatness can be found. There is a little bit of Graysmith in all of us at this site.

Tony, my praise was not meant to be faint at all, even in the wake of your own disclaimer—“For Information Only.” I was thrilled to see FAR FROM HEAVEN and several others here to be honest. Generally, I only make comments in this section to basically thank whomever it is who is taking the time to cast their vote. Your ballot is as good as anyone else’s. I just use different language to express myself under the ballots, but it all means the same.

Here is my revised and expanded list of favorite films of the decade. Top 50. I should say these are in no particular order, since rankings change depending on my mood, but for the sake of this thread, and for the fun of the list, this is how it was decided:

Ari: This high-quality, diversified listing is very much appreciated at the site, though your past submissions are no less magnificent. We’ve already discussed our mutual love for THE LAST MISTRESS, THE EDGE OF HEAVEN and that Haynes film, not to mention a number of others including JESSE JAMES. And you’ve stayed strong behind a number of others. Great stuff!

Finally! Someone else with “American Psycho” on their list! And at the top-spot, to boot, like mine! Bravo! If a few more people show up with that kind of wisdom, maybe it’ll have a chance of being a “Miami Vice” style upset!

I’ve only been an occasional poster but an avid reader, and I want to give a huge thank you to Allan, Sam, and all the other regulars for the tremendous amount of work put into this series. I welcome a new direction as much as the next guy, but things will be very different around here without Allan’s daily essays. The superlative writing here has opened me up to dozens of new films and directors from around the globe that I otherwise may never have encountered. More importantly, the site has been a gateway to some of the finest blogs on the net, some that have become something of an obsession to read. I’ll be eagerly awaiting Allan’s book, though it will never be the same without all the insightful comments.

That being said, I think this was a strong decade and am very happy with this list:

Dan: That’s one of the nicest comments I have ever seen at this site, and Allan deserves the appreciation you have graciously afforded him. Yes, the countdown essays can truthfully never be replaced, and what with all the contentious rhetoric and fruitful discourse they have become an institution at the site since only two months after it launched. The upcoming genre polls will be most interesting though, and I do believe we’ll see some great writing and management. Allan’s goal was indeed to educate, and humbly your testimony here validates that mission ten times over. Thanks so much Dan (you commented several times before I know) and this is a wonderful list you’ve entered too!

I can’t call this a definitive list, but this update switches the order and adds a few new choices that I either saw for the first time or re-evaluated and loved, so it’ll have to do for this poll.

1. Yi Yi
2. No Country For Old Men
3. A.I. Artificial Intelligence
4. Synecdoche New York
5. Mulholland Dr.
6. Werckmesiter Harmonies
7. Miami Vice
8. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
9. Pan’s Labyrinth
10. Inglourious Basterds
11. In the Mood For Love
12. Moolaadé
13. Gangs of New York
14. Talk to Her
15. The New World
16. Syndromes and a Century
17. Songs from the Second Floor
18. 25th Hour
19. The Prestige (well, I concede now that Allan was right about this)
20. Summer Hours
21. The White Ribbon
22. Wall•E
23. Kings and Queen
24. Half Nelson
25. Zodiac

# What I’ve found mildly interesting is the complete lack of ANY documentaries in virtually any of the polls of the decades, no ‘Year of the Pig’ in the ’60s, nor ‘Hearts and Minds’ from the ’70s. I’d say that the last ten years have been a godsend for the documentary, perhaps because technology has allowed them to made without huge overheads and the complete meltdown of the news media in the US.

oh, you mean the “2”….I just went through my folder of film posters, copying the titles to a word doc and then went through a second master list of films to watch. The “2” was just the second film poster, for some films I have ten.

I’d also recommend “The Power of Nightmares” (ballsy stuff, even if its presumptions are a little shakey), “No Maps For These Territories” (90 minutes in the back of a cab with William Gibson? I’m there), “Naqoyqatsi” (very different from the other two) and “The Fog of War” (the only Errol Morris doc where the subject actually puts up a fight).

Allan, I’m trying to remember the title of a charming Chinese film that was shown on BBC 4 about two or three years ago. It was about a son’s strained relationship with his father over the years, covered the Cultural Revolution and the father’s betrayl by his friend and neighbour and the son’s courtship on an ice-ring and his drawn sketches of that young woman. Do you know the title?

I wish! Hope you like it once you see it – I’m thinking about composing a 2000’s list today/tomorrow (as tribute to the closing of the countdown, despite this being one of my weakest decades for viewing) and Llinas’ film will definitely be on my list! In some ways it might be right up your alley…

Ok, even though there’s a huge number of acclaimed films I’ve yet to see, I’m going to submit a list. It’s a sort of combination best/favorite. Most of these films I’ve only seen once. I suspect the positions would change radically upon re-viewing, and that quite a few would drop out of the top 25 altogether. But this is how they stand now, based on memory of enjoyment and admiration.

1. Mulholland Dr.
2. Lost in Translation
3. Iraq in Fragments
4. Historias Extraordinarias
5. In the Mood for Love
6. Y Tu Mama Tambien
7. Syndromes and a Century
8. Wall-E
9. Dogville
10. Bus 174
11. Platform
12. The New World
13. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
14. The Royal Tenenbaums
15. 2046
16. The Five Obstructions
17. Still Life
18. Mutual Appreciation
19. City of God
20. Spirited Away
21. The World
22. 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days
23. AI Artificial Intelligence
24. No Country for Old Men
25. Antichrist

runners-up: Zodiac (was #24 until I remembered to include Historias Extraordinarias; then it was #25 but I switched it with Antichrist, a film I’m ambivalent about overall but whose opening is hands-down the most overpowering sequence I’ve experienced in a film this decade, and is up there amongst all-time astonishing scenes, in terms of sheer uncanny power of execution), Where the Wild Things Are (this came very very close to concluding the list, but got bumped off when I remembered to include Funny Ha Ha Mutual Appreciation – I need a second viewing to determine if its oustanding qualities, and it has quite a few particularly the creatures themselves, are enough to elevate into this category or if it just made a strong first impression which fades with repeat viewings), Funny Ha Ha (originally this was on the list and not Mutual Appreciation, but upon reflection I decided MA was the more accomplished picture even if FHH is somewhat more powerful), The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Oldboy, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Russian Ark, 25th Hour, The Gleaners & I, The Flight of the Red Balloon, Inglourious Basterds, This is England, Lilo and Stitch, The Pianist.

OK, Now I really need to see Iraq in Fragments. This is a pretty eclectic list. MovieMan, I think you might agree with me calling Jia the director of the decade. But it seems von Trier is a strong candidate too.

I hope you do, JAFB. It’s not only an extremely relevant film (one of the few masterpieces of the era to touch on matters of contemporary socio-political importance) but a rather groundbreaking documentary in its impressionistic take. It’s a kind of reverse neorealism – rather than dressing up fiction to look like reality it gives reality the gloss of fiction and is strongly subjective.

By the way, since you posted this comment, I’ve already changed the list, adding a Bujalski and Llinas (ironic, considering how much lip service I gave HE on another board – then I promptly forgot it compiling my list here!). Hopefully I didn’t forget anything else and it can be set in stone.

I’m very impressed with Jia, and I think there’s still 2-3 films on my Best of the 21st Century? series by him. When all’s said and done either those films or the ones I’ve already seen may very well inch their way up my own personal list. As of now, the list breaks down by region: 11 North America (excluding Mexico), 4 Latin America (including Mexico), 7 Asia, 3 Europe. I STRONGLY suspect that after viewing more 2000s films, if I were to do this list a year from now, Asian movies would outnumber, perhaps vastly, North American and would almost certainly make up the majority of the list.

*After modifying the list one (hopefully) last time, that’s 10 North America, 4 Europe.

MovieMan, gimme a week or so. I’ll see the film and get back on the review. I was not exactly overwhelmed by the documentaries of Adam Curtis (which are pretty solid, but seem incomplete. Except perhaps The Century of Self). Looking forward to it.

JAFB, Iraq in Fragments is actually from James Longley, a young filmmaker who not only directed, photographed, sound-recorded, and composed the score for the film as well as co-editing and co-producing! This is another aspect of the movie which fascinates me; aside from the subject matter and style, the process points the way to the future of a more personal, low-to-the-ground yet uber-“cinematic” way of making movies. As for Curtis, I was not particularly taken with (what I saw of) Power of Nightmares either. On the subject of docs, though, I ALSO suspect that in a year or so much more of this list would be taken up by documentary (right now only 3 made the cut, but I think re-viewings of some other strong docs might also push them back onto the list). This was the decade of both Asian film and documentary – most other areas and forms (except for Latin America and animation) did not match past accomplishments, from what I’ve seen.

1. The Prestige
2. Let the Right One In
3. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
4. The Class
5. Inglourious Basterds
6. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
7. Wall-E
8. You, the Living
9. The Lord of the Rings
10. Pan’s Labyrinth
11.Ratouille
12. Zodiac
13. Almost Famous
14. Up
15. The Wrestler
16. No Country for Old Men
17. There Will Be Blood
18. King Kong
19. Finding Nemo
20. A Prairie Home Companion
21. The New World
22. Adaptation.
23. Lost in Translation
24. The Lives of Others
25. (500) Days of Summer

Top Clicks

Wonders in the Dark is a blog dedicated to the arts, especially film, theatre and music. An open forum is highly encouraged, as the site proctors are usually ready and able to engage with ongoing conversation.